Foreword 

The 2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the 

Trade Agreements Program are submitted to the Congress pursuant to Section 163 of the Trade Act of 

1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2213). Chapter II and Annex II of this document meet the requirements of 

the World Trade Organization in accordance with Sections 122 and 124 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act. In addition, the report also includes an annex listing trade agreements entered into by 

the United States since 1984. Trade data for 2009, where listed, are annualized based on January to 

November data. Services data by country are only available through 2008. 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this 

report, which was written by USTR staff. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative gratefully 

acknowledges the contributions of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, and State. 

March 2010 

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Policy Coordination: 

 Carmen Suro-Bredie 

Policy Director: 

 Don Eiss 

Technical Assistant: 

 Laura S. Newport 

Project Advisors: 

Lauren G. Cohen 

Robert Folley 

Timothy William Preston 

Production Assistant: 

 Gloria Blue 
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS

AD ................................................................................... Antidumping 

AGOA ............................................................................. African Growth and Opportunity Act 

APEC .............................................................................. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 

ASEAN ........................................................................... Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

ATC ................................................................................ Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 

ATPA .............................................................................. Andean Trade Preferences Act 

ATPDEA ......................................................................... Andean Trade Promotion & Drug Eradication 

Act 

BIA .................................................................................. Built-In Agenda 

BIT .................................................................................. Bilateral Investment Treaty 

BOP ................................................................................. Balance of Payments 

CACM ............................................................................. Central American Common Market 

CAFTA ........................................................................... Central American Free Trade Area 

CARICOM ...................................................................... Caribbean Common Market 

CBERA ........................................................................... Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

CBI .................................................................................. Caribbean Basin Initiative 

CFTA .............................................................................. Canada Free Trade Agreement 

CITEL ............................................................................. Telecommunications division of the OAS 

COMESA...................................................... Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa 

CTE ................................................................................. Committee on Trade and the Environment 

CTG ................................................................................ Council for Trade in Goods 

CVD ................................................................................ Countervailing Duty 

DDA............................................................ Doha Development Agenda 

DSB ................................................................................. Dispute Settlement Body 

EAI......................................................... ....... Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative 

DSU ................................................................................ Dispute Settlement Understanding 

EU ................................................................................... European Union 

EFTA .............................................................................. European Free Trade Association 

FTAA .............................................................................. Free Trade Area of the Americas 

FOIA .............................................................................. Freedom of Information Act 

GATT .............................................................................. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

GATS ............................................................................. General Agreements on Trade in Services 

GDP ................................................................................ Gross Domestic Product 

GEC ................................................................................ Global Electronic Commerce 

GSP ................................................................................. Generalized System of Preferences 

GPA ................................................................................ Government Procurement Agreement 

IFI .................................................................................... International Financial Institution 

IPR .................................................................................. Intellectual Property Rights 

ITA .................................................................................. Information Technology Agreement 

LDBDC ........................................................................... Least Developed Beneficiary Developing 

Country 

MAI ................................................................................. Multilateral Agreement on Investment 

MEFTA......................................................... Middle East Free Trade Area 
 

MERCOSUL/MERCOSUR ............................................ Southern Common Market 

MFA ................................................................................ Multifiber Arrangement 

MFN ................................................................................ Most Favored Nation 

MOSS .............................................................................. Market-Oriented, Sector-Selective 

MOU ............................................................................... Memorandum of Understanding 

MRA ............................................................................... Mutual Recognition Agreement 

NAFTA ........................................................................... North American Free Trade Agreement 

NEC ............................................................ National Economic Council 

NIS .................................................................................. Newly Independent States 

NSC ................................................................................. National Security Council 

NTR ................................................................................ Normal Trade Relations 

OAS............................................................. Organization of American States 

OECD .............................................................................. Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development 

OPIC ............................................................................... Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

PNTR .............................................................................. Permanent Normal Trade Relations 

ROU ................................................................................ Record of Understanding 

SACU .............................................................................. Southern African Customs Union 

SADC .............................................................................. Southern African Development Community 

SME ................................................................................ Small and Medium Size Enterprise 

SPS .................................................................................. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

SRM ............................................................................... Specified Risk Material 

TAA ................................................................................ Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TABD .............................................................................. Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue 

TACD .............................................................................. Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue 

TAEVD......................................................... Trans-Atlantic Environment Dialogue 

TALD .............................................................................. Trans-Atlantic Labor Dialogue 

TBT ................................................................................. Technical Barriers to Trade 

TEP ................................................................................. Transatlantic Economic Partnership 

TIFA ................................................................................ Trade & Investment Framework Agreement 

TPRG .............................................................................. Trade Policy Review Group 

TPSC ............................................................................... Trade Policy Staff Committee 

TRIMS ............................................................................ Trade Related Investment Measures 

TRIPS .............................................................................. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights 

UAE............................................................. United Arab Emirates 

UNCTAD ........................................................................ United Nations Conference on Trade & 

Development 

UNDP........................................................... United Nations Development Program 

URAA ............................................................................. Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

USDA .............................................................................. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USITC ............................................................................. U.S. International Trade Commission 

USTR .............................................................................. United States Trade Representative 

VRA ............................................................ Voluntary Restraint Agreement 

WAEMU ........................................................................ West African Economic & Monetary Union 

WB ............................................................. World Bank 

WTO ............................................................................... World Trade Organization 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. THE PRESIDENT'S 2010 TRADE POLICY AGENDA ..................................................................... 1 

II. THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................ 1 

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

B. The WTO at 15 and American Interests .......................................................................................... 3

C. The Doha Development Agenda under the Trade Negotiations Committee ................................. 7

D. Work Programs Established in the Doha Development Agenda .................................................... 26

1. Working Group on Trade, Debt, and Finance .......................................................................... 26 

2. Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology ............................................................ 26 

3. Work Program on Electronic Commerce .................................................................................. 28 

E. General Council Activities .................................................................................................................. 28

F. Council for Trade in Goods ................................................................................................................ 31

1. Committee on Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 32

2. Committee on Market Access .................................................................................................... 34

3. Committee on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ................................. 35

4. Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures ................................................................. 37

5. Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ............................................................ 39

6. Committee on Customs Valuation .............................................................................................. 42

7. Committee on Rules of Origin ................................................................................................... 44

8. Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade .............................................................................. 46

9. Committee on Antidumping Practices ....................................................................................... 49

10. Committee on Import Licensing .............................................................................................. 52

11. Committee on Safeguards ....................................................................................................... 56

12. Working Party on State Trading Enterprises .......................................................................... 58

G. Council on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ............................................... 59

H. Council for Trade in Services ............................................................................................................ 63

1. Committee on Trade in Financial Services ................................................................................ 65

2. Working Party on Domestic Regulation ................................................................................... 66

3. Working Party on GATS Rules ................................................................................................. 67

4. Committee on Specific Commitments ........................................................................................ 68

I. Dispute Settlement Understanding ..................................................................................................... 69

J. Trade Policy Review Body ................................................................................................................. 101

K. Other General Council Bodies/Activities ........................................................................................ 103

1. Committee on Trade and Environment ................................................................................... 103
 

2. Committee on Trade and Development ................................................................................... 104

3. Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions ................................................................... 107

4. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration ............................................................... 108

5. Committee on Regional Trade Agreements ............................................................................ 109

6. Accessions to the World Trade Organization ......................................................................... 111

7. Aid for Trade ........................................................................................................................... 117

L. Plurilateral Agreements .................................................................................................................... 118

1. Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft ..................................................................................... 118

2. Committee on Government Procurement ................................................................................ 119

3. Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products . 121

III. BILATERAL AND REGIONAL NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS ............................. 123 

A. Free Trade Agreements ..................................................................................................................... 123

1. Australia ................................................................................................................................... 123

2. Bahrain .................................................................................................................................... 123

3. Central America and the Dominican Republic ........................................................................ 124

4. Chile ......................................................................................................................................... 126

5. Israel ........................................................................................................................................ 128

6. Jordan ...................................................................................................................................... 129

7. Morocco ................................................................................................................................... 130

8. North American Free Trade Agreement .................................................................................. 130

9. Oman ........................................................................................................................................ 132

10. Peru ........................................................................................................................................ 133

11. Singapore ............................................................................................................................... 134

B. Other Bilateral and Regional Initiatives ................................................................................................. 135 

1. The Americas ........................................................................................................................... 135 

2. Europe and the Middle East .................................................................................................... 137 

3. Japan, Korea, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum ......................................... 141 

4. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan ............................................................................................... 144 

5. Southeast Asia and the Pacific ................................................................................................. 146 

6. Sub-Saharan Africa .................................................................................................................. 148 

7. South and Central Asia ............................................................................................................ 149 

IV. OTHER TRADE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 153 

A. Trade and the Environment .............................................................................................................. 153

B. Trade and Labor ................................................................................................................................ 155

C. Small and Medium Sized Business Initiative ................................................................................... 158

D. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ............................................................................................ 159

E. Import Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 160

F. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development .......................................................... 162
V. TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 165 

A. Enforcing U.S. Trade Agreements .................................................................................................... 165

1. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 165

2. WTO Dispute Settlement .......................................................................................................... 167

3. Other Monitoring and Enforcement Activities ......................................................................... 167

4. Initiatives to Address Foreign Standards and SPS Barriers .................................................... 169

B. U.S. Trade Laws ................................................................................................................................. 170

1. Section 301 ............................................................................................................................... 170

2. Special 301 ............................................................................................................................... 173

3. Section 1377 Review of Telecommunications Agreements ...................................................... 174

4. Antidumping Actions ................................................................................................................ 175

5. Countervailing Duty Actions .................................................................................................... 176

6. Other Import Practices ............................................................................................................ 176

7. Trade Adjustment Assistance ................................................................................................... 178

8. United States Preference Programs ......................................................................................... 180

VI. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 189 

A. Trade Capacity Building (TCB) (“Aid for Trade”) ........................................................................ 189

1. Millennium Challenge Corporation ......................................................................................... 190

2. The Enhanced Integrated Framework ..................................................................................... 190

3. World Trade Organization-Related U.S. Trade-Related Assistance ....................................... 191

4. TCB Initiatives for Africa ......................................................................................................... 192

5. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Negotiations ............................................................................. 193

B. Public Input and Transparency ........................................................................................................ 194

1. Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 195

2. The Trade Advisory Committee System ................................................................................... 196

3. State and Local Government Relations .................................................................................... 199

C. Policy Coordination and Freedom of Information Act ................................................................... 201

ANNEX I 

ANNEX II 

ANNEX III 
THE PRESIDENT'S 2010 TRADE POLICY 

AGENDA

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 1 

I. THE PRESIDENT’S TRADE AGENDA 

Our Goal: Making Trade Work for America’s Working Families 

President Obama’s economic strategy halted the slide into a deep economic crisis and laid the foundation 

for renewed American prosperity that is more sustainable, fairer for more of our citizens, and more 

competitive globally. This progress required bold policy decisions at home, bolstered by efforts abroad to 

keep world markets open and economies moving toward greater stability. 

During the most severe recession since 1945, the nations of the world decisively rejected a protectionist 

panic. The steady resolve of the world’s leadership preserved the basis of the global trading system – and 

the potential of that system to aid economic recovery – through the worst of the downturn. The G-20 

nations each pledged to honor their obligations on trade and to work toward a balanced and ambitious 

outcome in the Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. In the United States, 

while crafting measures together to stimulate the American economy, Congress and the President 

reaffirmed our commitment to international trade obligations. 

As we reiterated the U.S. commitment to the rules-based global trading system, we exercised American 

rights within that system to bring more of its promised benefits – jobs and economic opportunities – home 

to American families and businesses. Fighting for market access abroad and responding to unfair foreign 

competition at home sometimes required new dispute proceedings at the WTO or action through other 

venues; in other cases, long-standing disputes that had paralyzed American ranch and farm exports were 

resolved through reinvigorated negotiations. We also found new market opportunities in existing vehicles 

for trade consultations – for instance, through a Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade agreement to 

further open China’s market to American wind energy products. 

In 2010, American exports will be critical to the creation and support of new American jobs. 

Accordingly, President Obama has set a goal of doubling U.S. exports in the next five years – an increase 

that will support 2 million additional jobs in America. Smart trade policies will play an important role in 

helping to meet the President’s goals as part of the new National Export Initiative. 

As part of our daily focus on spurring economic growth and putting Americans back to work, the 

Administration began several months ago to craft a comprehensive plan for reaching the President’s goal 

of increasing exports over the next five years. Key cabinet agency officials including the United States 

Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce, along with the Council of Economic Advisers, the 

National Economic Council, and the National Security Council carefully analyzed growth trends in the 

world economy and policies the Administration could pursue to help improve U.S. export performance 

over the 2009-2014 period. 

The President’s National Export Initiative includes a newly created Export Promotion Cabinet, an 

enhancement of funding for key export promotion programs, the mobilization of government officials to 

engage in export advocacy activities, the launch of export tools for small- and medium-sized businesses, 

the reduction in barriers to trade, and the opening of new markets. 

Creating and implementing these and other forward-leaning policies requires a frank conversation with 

Congress and with the American people about the benefits and challenges of engagement with global 

trade and investment. 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 2 

The President’s Trade Policy Agenda for 2010 advances a robust American role in the global trading 

system by further outlining what trade can mean for American exports, jobs, and economic growth – and 

also for global economic recovery and well-being. It discusses policies that implement our commitment 

to the rules-based trading system and the enforcement of our rights within that system. It outlines the 

steps that we will take to further stimulate jobs and growth here at home and around the world, and how 

we are building on existing trade agreements and pending pacts. It addresses how our trade policy 

partners the United States with the developing countries of the world. And it examines the 

Administration’s commitments to the American people on energy and the environment, to making trade 

policy more reflective of American values – including the fundamental rights of workers – and to political 

transparency in trade policy. 

Trade and American Jobs 

Effective trade policy helps increase exports that yield well-paying jobs for Americans – a win both for 

our companies and for our working families. Whether businesses are large or small, studies show that 

firms engaged in trade usually grow faster, hire more, and on average pay better wages than those that do 

not. In recent years, exports of manufactured goods have become an important source of employment, 

supporting almost one in five of all manufacturing jobs. 

Commerce Department estimates suggest that over 10 million jobs were supported by exports in 2008 and 

doubling exports from 2009 to 2014 could help exports support millions more jobs. Export expansion 

will also bring broader benefits for American recovery: the U.S. economy began to expand again in the 

last six months of 2009, at a rate of 4 percent (on an annualized basis) – and rapidly growing U.S. exports 

contributed nearly 2 percentage points to this growth rate. 

Trade is also the lifeblood of many American farms and ranches. Compared to the general economy, U.S. 

agriculture is twice as reliant on overseas markets. And our traditionally high levels of exports of such 

crops as wheat, rice, and corn are being joined by growing exports of fruits, vegetables, and animal 

products. The Agriculture Department estimates that our agricultural exports currently support jobs for 

more than 800,000 Americans. 

To improve American prosperity, we must match other countries in seeking new international markets 

aggressively. About 95 percent of the world’s customers and almost 80 percent of its economic 

production are already outside U.S. borders. International Monetary Fund forecasts indicate that nearly 

87 percent of world growth over the next 5 years will take place outside of the United States. America 

cannot reach its full potential for generating jobs without selling more goods and services globally. As 

the President said in the State of the Union, “If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign 

trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.” 

We have to be frank in recognizing that some Americans lose jobs as markets shift in response to trade 

competition. Working with Congress, the President was able to sign into law in 2009 expanded eligibility 

and much-needed advances in Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), including covering service workers 

for the first time. There is more we can and must do to limit the impact of dislocations and to support 

new jobs for workers in transition, and we will continue our ongoing work with Congress to ensure 

adequate funding for TAA programs and to ensure that U.S. workforce programs complement each other. 

Effective trade initiatives can open markets and ensure that more of trade’s benefits accrue to American 

workers. Trade promotion policies can help to meet expanded export goals with new advocacy assistance 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 3 

for American firms, more trade related financing, and policies designed to stimulate innovative 

technologies. But trade policy alone cannot achieve our goals. Our policies for education, investment, 

labor markets, health care, energy, the environment and innovation also have to respond to changes in the 

world economy. American workers will prosper and American firms will compete strongly only if we 

improve competitiveness at home. 

A broad international effort is also vital. As President Obama said in November 2009, for the sake of a 

stable and balanced global prosperity, the major economies must work together to rebalance the world 

economy and avoid the boom and bust cycle that has plagued us. Trade policy has a key role in this 

rebalancing. As an economy, the United States needs to slow the rate of consumption growth, while it 

saves, invests, produces and exports more. Countries with large trade surpluses should increase their 

domestic consumption and imports as part of a more balanced growth strategy. Collectively, the 

community of nations has to break down long-standing barriers to trade and investment as well as newer 

impediments that obstruct trade and slow economic integration. Competitive global markets, governed by 

effective rules for trade and sound domestic policies, can advance our broader economic agenda for 

sustainable growth and prosperity shared by farmers, workers, ranchers, entrepreneurs large and small, 

and those who struggle economically here and around the world. 

Our Policy Priorities

Support and Strengthen a Rules-Based Trading System 

In a time of global economic challenge, the United States has reaffirmed its commitment to the rulesbased trade system anchored by the WTO’s system of multilateral trading rules and dispute settlement. 

The WTO is both a venue for multilateral liberalization through negotiation and a defense against 

protectionism. The alternative to respect for the rules is growing mutual suspicion and conflict among 

trade partners. 

Strengthening of the trade system can occur through better enforcement of existing rights and through 

new rules negotiated to respond to changing economic conditions. Enforcement actions both increase 

public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of trade rules, and they provide an equitable way to 

handle disagreements in a mature trade relationship. The WTO’s system of dispute settlement is a vital 

avenue for countries to resolve difficult disagreements while maintaining solid working relationships. 

Just as importantly, a strong dispute settlement system gives countries an incentive to negotiate earnestly 

to avoid the risk of litigation. 

It is not enough just to preserve past progress in trade liberalization and enhance public confidence in 

existing rules. We seek to continue the process of reducing trade barriers in order to strengthen the 

commerce that yields good jobs. 

Although there are many avenues for trade negotiation, the WTO remains the most comprehensive venue 

and influences the functioning of the rest of the trade system. As the President made clear in a November 

2009 speech in Japan, the United States is “working toward an ambitious and balanced Doha agreement – 

not any agreement, but an agreement that will open up markets and increase exports around the world.” 

This is why we strongly support the work to complete an ambitious and balanced Doha Round agreement. 

A successful Doha Round will embrace a process of balanced and ambitious give and take among 

established or newly emerging trading powers, while giving due consideration to the special interests and 

circumstances of developing economies, including major achievements in regard to their development 

agenda. 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 4 

There should be no mistake about the context for the Doha Round. The United States is the most open 

major market in the world. Similarly, the United States provides significant duty-free and quota-free 

market access to least-developed countries. The question is how to move forward based on this 

foundation, and whether advanced developing economies will accept responsibility commensurate with 

their growing economic influence. 

In terms of what is currently on the table in the Doha negotiations, the value of what the United States 

would give in market opening, along with a reduction of U.S. agriculture support, is well-known and 

easily calculable. In contrast, the value of new opportunities for our businesses, workers, farmers, and 

ranchers remains vague because of the broad flexibilities available to key emerging markets, like China, 

India, and Brazil that are fast growing economies and important markets of the future. To achieve further 

progress, it is essential to gain more clarity in the level of market access contributions by advanced 

developing countries, and ensure that the results provide significant market opportunities for American 

entrepreneurs and workers in agriculture, goods, and services. Such market access contributions also will 

underpin the development goals of the negotiations given that 70 percent of the tariffs developing 

countries pay are paid to other developing countries. 

The Doha negotiations, launched in 2001, had been stalled for years when President Obama took office in 

2009. Strict focus on the effort to negotiate broad, generally-applicable formulas for tariff reduction (socalled “modalities”) had produced no final agreement at ministerial gatherings in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

Rather than agreeing to replicate the past negotiating process that had led to weak results, the United 

States has supported a different approach to the end game in order to gain a stronger outcome. 

Since a review of the negotiations at the outset of this Administration, the United States clearly has 

indicated ways to advance the negotiations through a variety of mechanisms. These include pursuing 

negotiations focusing on tariff liberalization in selected industrial goods sectors (e.g., chemicals, 

electronics, health care products, industrial machinery) and improved packages in services (providing new 

market access in key infrastructure services sectors such as financial services, information and 

communications technology, distribution, energy and express delivery). Meaningful progress on reducing 

non-tariff barriers that inhibit our exports is critical. The United States has led the way with proposals on 

remanufactured goods, and in sector-specific areas such as the automotive sector and electronics. The 

United States also remains a leader in advancing the Doha negotiations on trade facilitation aimed at 

reducing red tape and addressing other unwarranted customs barriers at the border – matters which 

especially concern U.S. exporters. 

We remain convinced that a Doha success can be achieved if all major economies are willing to come to 

the negotiating table. Recent U.S.-led innovations in the negotiating process have supplemented the 

broad-based multilateral negotiations with direct bilateral engagement among key Members. The purpose 

is to achieve more clarity and to bridge gaps – especially with regard to ensuring sufficient market access 

contributions by advanced developing countries. In the Doha Round, the least developed countries are 

not being asked to make any commitments. In 2009, G-20 Leaders directed that a stock-taking of the 

Doha negotiations be conducted in early 2010, and the United States is committed to ensure that this be 

done in the most efficient and appropriate format that contributes to further progress. 

A sound Doha agreement that provides meaningful liberalization in all three core market access areas – 

agriculture, goods and services – could boost the world economy, support many good jobs, assist poorer 

countries, and reinforce confidence in a rules-based trading system. In short, it would be good for the 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 5 

world and for the United States. But a weak agreement would not serve these interests and ultimately 

would weaken the WTO. 

Enforce Our Rights in the Rules-Based System 

The American people expect firm pursuit of our rights in the rules-based trading system in order to ensure 

fair competition with global trading partners. Americans succeed in global competition when partners 

play by the established rules for exporting and importing. 

Our trade rights include protection of intellectual property, the ability to address a wide array of market 

access barriers to U.S. goods and services, and recourse to trade remedies when necessary. Taken 

together, these rights guarantee the economic opportunities of trade by reducing critical barriers to our 

exports and leveling the playing field among trading partners. Our rights also include the upholding of 

the American values embodied in basic international labor standards and in the implementation of 

international environmental agreements. 

During 2009, this Administration responded to the call of the American people for more vigilant trade 

enforcement, and exercised our discretion to assert America’s trade rights. Whether addressing a harmful 

surge of Chinese tire imports into the United States, challenging unjustified restrictions on U.S. exports of 

agricultural products in multiple countries, acting to implement a finding that Canada violated the 

softwood lumber agreement, winning distribution rights for American content companies in China, or 

filing suit over Chinese export quotas and duties on raw materials needed by core U.S. industrial sectors 

from steel and aluminum to chemicals, the Administration has taken actions under the legal remedies 

authorized by our trade agreements. 

At the same time, we have made it clear that we welcome rapid and pragmatic resolution of trade disputes 

rather than prolonged uncertainty. In this spirit, we maintained some WTO-authorized trade sanctions, 

but refrained from imposing sanctions on new European Union products while working with the EU to 

address the long-standing American claims against policies that restricted imports of American beef. 

We continue to strengthen our capacity to monitor markets and strongly enforce our rights and benefits 

under our trade agreements. This year, we will report and act on new measures instituted in 2009 to spot 

and address trade barriers that particularly affect America's agricultural producers and manufacturers, 

such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures restricting U.S. agricultural exports and technical barriers 

impeding our producers' ability to trade worldwide. We will continue to increase coordination between 

USTR and the Departments of State, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, and other federal agencies to spot 

and respond to violations of our trade rights more quickly and effectively. 

Many of the most troublesome problems for our exporters involve behind the border barriers that are comingled with legitimate rules for important social purposes such as privacy, consumer protection, and 

food safety goals. These purposes are recognized fully and supported under trade agreements, but they 

sometimes serve as an excuse to introduce discriminatory trade measures. Too frequently, scientific 

judgments and internationally accepted guidelines are ignored when making policies for agricultural 

products, including rules governing poultry sanitation, restrictions on pork and pork products in response 

to the H1N1 virus, non-science-based restrictions on the import of U.S. beef, and regulations governing 

some genetically modified food products. Even in trading partners with sophisticated regulatory systems, 

such as the European Union and Japan, certain regulations and enforcement actions are inconsistent with 

scientific evidence and internationally accepted guidelines. More vigorous enforcement of existing trade 

rules may address some trade related problems for such high-growth industries as biotechnology. When 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 6 

making decisions to enforce our trade rights, we will be careful to consult with other U.S. agencies to 

ensure consistency with, and the protection of, our own domestic policy interests. Because the 

foundations of global agricultural trade depend on economies’ adherence to scientific evidence and 

internationally accepted guidelines, we will continue to rely on the best scientific advice when making our 

decisions. 

Over the last year, we also instituted more vigorous scrutiny of foreign labor practices and began to 

redress practices that impinge upon labor obligations in our trade agreements, deny foreign workers their 

internationally recognized rights, and tilt the playing field away from American workers. We will 

enhance monitoring by USTR and other agencies of labor practices in FTA partner countries, ensure 

thorough review of all public submissions under FTA labor chapters, directly engage other governments 

to address areas of concern through dialogue and technical cooperation programs as appropriate, and 

invoke FTA consultation and arbitral panel provisions as needed. In addition to enforcement of labor 

provisions in trade agreements, we will intensify dialogue with key trade partners to ensure the discussion 

of labor rights as part of our trade discussions. In doing so, we will seek regular, high-level dialogue with 

key trade partners, including China, India, Mexico, Canada, and the EU, to elevate the discourse on the 

relationship between respect for labor rights and enhanced trade. 

Monitoring our FTA partners' implementation of, and compliance with, environment chapter obligations 

is an important part of USTR’s mission. USTR gathers information on implementation and compliance 

issues through regular meetings with our FTA partners, active engagement with our advisory committee 

members, and by engaging civil society in both the United States and our FTA partner countries. 

Recently, USTR created a Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) to focus 

exclusively on monitoring of implementation and compliance issues for FTA environment chapters. 

These mechanisms and high-level dialogue on trade and environment issues with our FTA partners will 

provide USTR with the tools necessary to ensure our FTA partners are faithfully and fully adhering to 

their FTA environmental obligations. 

We will enforce fully labor and environmental rights specified in our trade agreements, including through 

dispute settlement as necessary. 

Enhance U.S. Growth, Job Creation and Innovation 

American trade policy has to emphasize the pursuit of the most significant new market opportunities in 

ways that enhance sustainable growth, innovation, and good jobs through expanded trade. 

Deepening engagement with major emerging markets is critical for American trade prospects. We placed 

a particular emphasis on countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia in 2009; these and other large 

emerging markets will figure prominently in the future. As a region, the Asia-Pacific will weigh much 

more prominently in American trade and world economic activity in the future, and it will take multiple 

initiatives to maximize the opportunities for the region. Deepening and strengthening our longstanding 

and vital trade ties with the European Union will build upon the already immense benefits of that 

relationship. Beyond geographic opportunities, we plan to target specific classes of market barriers that 

impede our trade, and focus on sectors that provide special opportunities for enhanced growth of jobs and 

innovation, working within and enhancing key bilateral and regional arrangements. 

 

The U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) addressed numerous issues with our 

second largest trading partner in 2009. Some significant progress emerged on issues involving 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 7 

intellectual property (e.g. combating Internet piracy), better access for American wind energy companies, 

and agriculture (e.g. working to dismantle the barrier to U.S. pork products created over fears concerning 

the H1N1 virus), but many matters influencing market access remain unresolved including China’s 

approach to industrial policies such as indigenous innovation. A greater understanding of best practices 

regarding government policies for intellectual property protection, the setting of industry standards, and 

government procurement practices could promote government policies that foster, rather than hamper, the 

development of technology markets. China’s industrial policies in various sectors, particularly steel, 

involve substantial government involvement in production and investment decisions, contributing to 

production overcapacity and unnecessary trade frictions. Concerns about transparency also continue. We 

must continue to improve the management of the U.S.-China relationship to address concerns in a timely, 

proactive way. In 2010, we will make the JCCT more effective by ensuring our priorities reflect evolving 

market conditions and changing Chinese policies and develop work plans with clear outcomes and 

responsibilities. A successful and productive JCCT in 2010 will reinforce the United States’ other work 

with China, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. 

Similarly, in 2009 the Administration sought to strengthen frameworks for America’s growing 

relationship with India. U.S.-India trade has doubled in the last five years. To accelerate this trend, the 

most recent ministerial meeting of the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum set out a significantly expanded 

work program and refreshed its advisory groups. In 2010, as part of the Trade Policy Forum, we intend to 

address key trade irritants and develop cooperative initiatives – especially on issues related to innovation, 

services, agriculture, market access, and investment. Our plans also include work on a commercial space 

launch agreement and continued negotiation of a Bilateral Investment Treaty. 

After years of emphasis on the multilateral dimension and bilateral concerns in the U.S. trade relationship 

with Brazil, this Administration sought a more collaborative focus in 2009. U.S. exports and imports 

with Brazil more than doubled between 2001 and 2008 in a balanced trading relationship. We can do 

even better with a stronger bilateral mechanism for engagement, and in 2010 we will explore options for 

the creation of a more robust formal framework for trade dialogue between the United States and Brazil. 

In 2009, the United States worked with Russia to develop a well-functioning and more mature trade 

relationship in keeping with the objective of both our governments for a stronger overall partnership. 

Even as we pressed strongly for changes in Russian policy to end significant barriers to American farm 

products and other exports, we still worked diligently with Russia on how it could achieve its goal of 

accession to WTO membership. Since the apparent reversal of Russia’s announced plan to accede to the 

WTO as part of a customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus, we have awaited clearer signals on its 

trade plans in 2010, including its intentions on how to resume work on its WTO accession and to resolve 

a bilateral trade concern. We will continue to work with Russia to ensure that trade and investment 

priorities keep pace with other important aspects of our bilateral relationship. 

Bilateral relationships are crucial. But as we know, multi-faceted regional economic relationships are of 

major, and even growing, importance for United States and for the world. 

The Asia-Pacific region, encompassing Asia and the Americas, already constitutes the largest share of the 

world economy, and that share will continue to grow in the coming decade. If the United States is to 

benefit from more exports, job expansion, and accelerated innovation through trade, the Asia-Pacific must 

take a central place in our trade agenda. And countries in that region must see the United States as a 

committed and engaged trading partner if we are to remain similarly at the center of its network of 

intensifying trade relationships. 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 8 

Given the region’s diverse institutions, an Asia-Pacific strategy necessarily must include multiple, 

complementary approaches. Finding the right vehicles for achieving our interests was a critical task for 

our trade agenda in 2009. Two initiatives with different approaches and constituencies will be central to 

our regional efforts in 2010 and 2011. 

After a careful analysis and extensive consultation with Congress and with stakeholders, the United States 

announced in December 2009 that it intends to enter into negotiations of a regional, Asia-Pacific trade 

agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, with Australia, Brunei, Chile, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The Administration believes that the TPP is the strongest vehicle 

for achieving economic integration across the Asia-Pacific region and advancing U.S. economic interests 

with the fastest-growing economies in the world. Building on the most forward-looking aspects of 

existing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and on the emerging special opportunities and challenges 

characterizing the Asia-Pacific market, the United States intends to shape a broad, deep, and high quality 

21st century regional trade agreement. We believe that the dynamic economies of the countries involved 

in the negotiation, and its strong policy ambitions, will lead other countries to seek to join the 

undertaking. 

The Administration will develop its negotiating objectives for the TPP Agreement consistent with its 

pledge to engage fully with diverse stakeholders in America. To that end, this Administration has 

embarked upon an unprecedented scale and scope of consultative outreach related to TPP involving all 50 

states and key Congressional committees. We will organize advice not just by traditional industry 

boundaries, but also in response to cross-cutting concerns involving matters ranging from labor and the 

environment to the efficiency of regional supply chains and the concerns of small- and medium-sized 

businesses. This effort will also demonstrate that a properly designed process of expanded consultation 

with stakeholders and Congress does not have to slow down trade negotiations, but can in fact energize 

talks. We plan to participate in the first two negotiating sessions of the TPP in the first half of 2010, even 

as the consultative process progresses. 

At the same time, we will continue work with our trading partners in the Asia Pacific Economic 

Cooperation (APEC) forum to build consensus and advance work on critical trade and investment issues 

leading up to 2011 when the United States will host APEC. To this end, we are coordinating with the 

2010 host nation, Japan, on an ambitious agenda that engages APEC’s broad membership on crucial trade 

and investment topics for the region’s future. Initiatives in APEC are a successfully demonstrated way of 

building a stronger and constructive American role in the Asia-Pacific market. 

The expanded APEC agenda addresses many of the key prospects for growing jobs through expanded 

exports and faster rates of economic growth and innovation. For example, in 2009 APEC concluded work 

on an initiative co-sponsored by the United States, aimed at enhancing the cross-border trade of services 

that has become so vital for American exporters. APEC members also took steps to make it cheaper, 

easier, and faster for businesses to conduct trade in the region in order to expand exports and grow jobs. 

Specifically, we worked to simplify rules of origin and documentation, making it easier to take advantage 

of preferential trade deals in the region; to reduce the time, cost, and uncertainty of moving goods and 

services through the region by improving logistics and transportation networks; and to improve the 

transparency and accessibility of APEC economies’ customs information and regulations. We believe 

that these new APEC work programs will stimulate the trade-driven growth of small- and medium-sized 

enterprises that particularly need less red tape and more cost-effective logistics. Additionally, APEC 

members agreed on an ambitious plan to address barriers to trade and investment in environmental goods 

and services. 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 9 

The TPP and APEC initiatives will be complemented by other undertakings in the region. For example, 

we are committed to continue working with the ten Southeast Asian countries that comprise the 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to build our economic relationships in this region of 

commercial and strategic importance to the United States and to support ASEAN integration. 

The Administration recognizes the maturity, stability, and immense mutual benefits of the U.S. trade 

relationship with the European Union. The instances of transatlantic trade tensions are dwarfed by the 

depth of our investment and trade ties, much of which translates directly to jobs and which signifies the 

leadership of the United States and Europe in a 21st century innovation economy. A deepening of this 

partnership and removal of remaining impediments promises even greater returns. We will look for ways 

to respond more fully to the shared challenges we face as an innovation-driven transatlantic market, 

especially as other major trading partners assume a more prominent role in global trade. While fully 

respecting those who regulate on behalf of the health and safety of American and European citizens, we 

must also find means of minimizing trade conflict in the regulatory sphere, particularly in areas where 

technology is presenting new challenges. We also are confident that the United States and the EU can 

benefit from a fuller sharing of experiences about the vital roles of small- and medium-sized enterprises 

(SMEs) in our trade relationship. For example, a larger percentage of European SMEs export globally 

than do U.S. SMEs, and we will seek to identify lessons to help U.S. small businesses enjoy similar 

export successes. 

Even as we address trade in bilateral and regional contexts, a smart trade policy must also pursue new 

ways to enhance our prospects in the high-growth, high-value-added markets at the core of American 

competitive strength in goods, services, and many parts of agriculture. This leads us to another set of 

trade initiatives focused on our biggest growth opportunities. 

The significance of non-tariff barriers has increased in the global trading system as tariffs have declined. 

While enforcing existing rules governing non-tariff barriers is essential, we will pursue new initiatives on 

non-tariff barriers that bolster the legal protections of our exporters and investors within the rule-making 

and judicial processes of our trading partners. We will propose agreements on improving transparency in 

decision-making because they reinforce the right of American firms to be full players in the process. We 

will advocate for agreements reinforcing the rights of American firms to the same treatment as the firms 

of the host country, including the state-owned enterprises that often receive privileged treatment under 

national industrial policies. 

We will tackle one of the most vexing problems for American firms on world markets: the costly and 

time-consuming regulatory review of products across many national markets. Whenever the prospects for 

success are reasonable and our own ability to regulate in the public interest can be fully protected, we will 

use trade policy to help American firms get their products to market more simply and more efficiently. 

For example, winning recognition of testing results issued by qualified U.S. laboratories by regulators in 

other countries could reduce costs and simplify safety certification while upholding safety standards. 

Because fostering innovation is essential to our prosperity and to the support of countless jobs in the 

United States, we will protect American inventiveness and creativity with all the tools of trade policy. 

Insufficient protection of intellectual property rights undermines key U.S. comparative advantages in 

innovation and creativity, to the detriment of American businesses and workers. We will address 

insufficient protection of intellectual property rights by negotiating and enforcing effective intellectual 

property protection in a manner compatible with basic principles of the public welfare. This will also 

advance global welfare, as the innovation rewarded by creation of intellectual property rights will be 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 10 

essential for solving pressing global energy and environmental issues. At the same time, we will continue 

to recognize the need for timely transparency and public consultation when addressing intellectual 

property problems in rapidly changing markets, as our domestic legislation on intellectual property 

represents a careful and complex balancing of competing equities. This is why we have committed this 

year, with our trading partners, to assure meaningful public input on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting 

Trade Agreement. 

We will also pursue opportunities to improve trade rules in global and regional markets that present the 

largest opportunities for boosting innovation that can benefit American exports and even improve wellbeing around the world. For example, a 1990s trade initiative on e-commerce cleared the way for the 

global expansion of markets that was newly possible due to the emergence of the World Wide Web. This 

created major opportunities for American exports of information products and services. Today, another 

wave of major change in information and communications technology goods and services has expanded 

people’s opportunities to benefit from powerful information services around the world, enabling sweeping 

innovations ranging from smart energy grids to vastly expanded telemedicine. We will discuss with our 

trading partners how trade policy could best enhance these new infrastructure services and technologies 

that are the digital foundations for the global innovation at which American firms particularly excel. 

When trade policy can advance these or other large opportunities for growth, such as energy and 

environmental technologies, we will respond by being flexible about the forum and the means. 

Work to Resolve Outstanding Issues with Pending Free Trade Agreements and Build on Existing 

Trade and Investment Arrangements 

Like other members of the WTO, the United States has created an extensive series of bilateral and 

regional trade and investment agreements. Last year, we pledged to seek paths forward on three pending 

Free Trade Agreements, and to build on important existing agreements to better achieve our goals of more 

jobs, higher growth, and the promotion of our core values. We seized the opportunities offered by current 

Free Trade Agreements and Trade and Investment Framework Agreements to discuss problems and 

launched new initiatives with a number of partners. We promised a careful review of the North American 

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and of the model text guiding our negotiators on Bilateral Investment 

Treaties (BITs). 

The Administration continues to believe that proper resolution and implementation of Free Trade 

Agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea can bring significant economic and strategic benefits. 

However, there have been serious questions in America about some aspects of these pending pacts. 

Rather than brush these questions aside, we conducted extensive consultations with Congress, 

stakeholders, and the public on the pending Agreements, including a Federal Register Notice on 

Colombia and Korea to more precisely identify issues. We will continue to engage with the Governments 

of Panama, Colombia, and Korea as we further refine our analysis of these issues. 

With Panama, we are tackling issues involving reform of its labor regime to achieve consistency with the 

pending trade agreement and are pursuing an understanding on tax transparency rules. We have begun 

working with Colombia to assess and improve the labor code and the measures to address violence 

against labor union officials to ensure that union rights in that country can be fully and freely exercised. 

With Korea, we are determining how best to address outstanding issues, particularly related to 

automobiles and beef, in light of the recent agreement between President Obama and President Lee to 

work together to move the agreement forward. If these outstanding issues can be successfully resolved, 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 11 

we will work with Congress on a timeframe to submit them for Congressional consideration so our 

producers can take full advantage of the opportunities presented by these agreements. 

Our partnership with Canada and Mexico is strong. We will seek opportunities to further strengthen this 

relationship both bilaterally and through the NAFTA process during the coming year. Last year’s trade 

agenda promised to examine how to recalibrate the NAFTA, so that it better responds to the challenges 

facing North American competitiveness and the needs of our societies in the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico. The task now is to determine how best to make improvements in labor practices and policies, 

and environmental practices and policies, into complements to our common NAFTA goal of accelerating 

job creation and economic growth. Our trade ministers have agreed to seek closer cooperation to 

strengthen our undertakings with regard to labor and environmental issues related to our trade 

relationships. 

With all NAFTA commitments to eliminate duties and quotas now fully phased in, regulatory cooperation 

is the next big opportunity to facilitate trade in North America and increase our global competitiveness. 

Our three governments agreed to focus in 2010 on cooperating to reduce unnecessary regulatory 

differences on matters such as standards and technical regulations. This priority is in keeping with the 

Administration’s commitment to increase exports by small- and medium-sized American enterprises, as 

they disproportionately experience the costs of regulatory disparities when seeking to expand exports 

throughout the NAFTA region. 

Substantial investment in foreign markets has become an indispensable foundation for supporting many 

American exports. Bilateral Investment Treaties are important tools for protecting the interests of 

American enterprises in overseas markets. As a result, these treaties have taken on greater significance 

for promoting American jobs and prosperity. We have to keep these agreements attuned to changing 

market conditions while maintaining their consistency with broader American values. 

The Administration began a review of the “Model Bilateral Investment Treaty,” co-led by the Office of 

the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of State, in spring 2009. It 

particularly assessed the proper balance of investor and government rights under the BIT and the 

adequacy of investor protections in markets featuring a prominent role for state-owned enterprises. 

Extensive public outreach contributed to the analysis. The Administration is working to conclude the 

BIT review expeditiously, so that the United States can resume negotiations with carefully chosen 

countries, including with key emerging economies, such as China, India, Vietnam, and Mauritius. 

Facilitate Progress on National Energy and Environmental Goals 

The President is working with Congress to advance new energy and environmental policies for the United 

States, including a strong response to the challenge of climate change, investment in alternative energy 

supplies and improved sustainability of key natural resources. Good trade policy can accelerate the 

success of sound energy and environmental initiatives. 

The United States will back trade initiatives that will lower the cost and enhance the efficacy of our 

energy and environmental strategies. For example, we fully support fast-tracking action with willing 

partners in the WTO’s work on liberalizing trade in innovative, climate-friendly goods and services 

through tariff reductions that will stimulate their global markets. These technologies can make our 

societies more energy efficient and less dependent on imported fossil fuels. This is a good environmental 

policy with strong jobs potential through greater exports. 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 12 

Trade policy can complement sustainable growth. By promoting investment in clean energy 

technologies, we can create jobs at home and reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world. A 

smart and comprehensive approach to climate change will respect our international trade obligations and 

help U.S. industries gain a competitive edge in the new clean energy economy. And, we can continue to 

work to ensure emerging and less developed economies will reduce carbon emissions while protecting the 

intellectual property rights that provide incentives for firms to innovate. 

There are many other possibilities for complementary progress on trade and the environment. The 

management of sustainable natural resources could benefit strongly from trade rules that help to balance 

competitive markets with sustainable yields. Improving efficiency, reducing production subsidies, and 

curbing trade in illegally produced products can reduce costs while strengthening responsible resource 

management. For this reason, we are advocating strong rules in the WTO on fisheries subsidies, which 

can effectively curb overcapacity and overfishing. We have also championed the APEC Framework for 

Environmental Goods and Services and have used our trade dialogues with China and countries in 

Southeast Asia to introduce new initiatives on promoting trade in legally-harvested forest products. We 

will explore other trade measures to address the problem of illegal logging. 

Foster Stronger Partnerships with Developing and Poor Nations 

This Administration supports expanding trade opportunities to stimulate market-led growth in the poorer 

countries of the world and to lift their national income levels. Trade expansion can also be a powerful 

tool for restoring jobs to a nation devastated by natural disaster, such as Haiti. At the same time, the 

Administration recognizes that opportunities created by open markets require complementary measures to 

achieve the greatest boost for these countries. 

Much can be done through the WTO. The United States stands by our Hong Kong commitment to 

provide duty-free and quota-free market access to least-developed countries as part of the implementation 

of a successful conclusion to the Doha Round. We also will champion the WTO’s work on trade 

facilitation, as simplifying and modernizing customs procedures enhances trading opportunities, improves 

the investment climate and helps better integrate developing countries, particularly least developed 

countries (LDCs), into global supply networks. We also will continue support for the Enhanced 

Integrated Framework through bilateral trade capacity building assistance and on-the-ground presence in 

LDCs. This will include the work of USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We will work 

with developing countries to help prioritize trade in their development plans, particularly in critical 

undertakings such as food security. Entrepreneurs in developing countries are important champions for 

creating market-based prosperity. 

Trade preference programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the African Growth 

and Opportunity Act (AGOA), help developing countries to find a place in the world trading system. We 

will continue to work with the Congress and other stakeholders to implement and improve these 

programs, and to better focus benefits on the poorest countries. We also will continue to provide traderelated technical assistance for these programs. Even as the United States retains its role as the world’s 

largest donor of “aid for trade,” countries benefiting from preference programs must also make the critical 

reforms and investments needed to diversify their exports and improve their competitiveness in the United 

States as well as regional and global markets. 

In the world’s poorest countries, ranging from Haiti to Sub-Saharan Africa, we will make special efforts 

to link trade and economic opportunity for countries that have been particularly ravaged by disaster or 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 13 

violence. For example, we will work with the Haitian government, the private sector and international 

institutions to promote the recovery of Haiti’s job-generating export sectors. We will help Haiti to take 

maximum advantage of opportunities in the U.S. market, particularly through the implementation of the 

Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE II) Act and will explore 

further steps that can be taken to encourage investment in Haiti and the development of a vibrant private 

sector. 

Sub-Saharan Africa is the location of the world’s largest cluster of extremely poor countries, but the 

beginnings of growth and reform are evident. The United States will continue to partner with African 

countries to perpetuate positive changes. Building on the success of last summer’s AGOA Forum in 

Nairobi, USTR will work with Congress and stakeholders toward a new U.S.-Africa trade paradigm that 

takes into account new and evolving global trade developments. The next AGOA Forum of U.S. and 

African trade ministers, to be hosted by the United States this year, can promote the benefits of U.S.-

Africa trade to the American public, develop plans to better incorporate small- and medium-sized 

businesses into trade with Africa, and work with Congress to help African countries take better advantage 

of AGOA and other trade opportunities. The United States also will continue to work on a bilateral 

investment treaty with Mauritius, to work with African partners through existing Trade and Investment 

Framework Agreements (TIFAs), and to consider what other types of trade arrangements the United 

States can advance with African nations. 

Finally, as the United States creates opportunities in developing economies, we will use trade policy and 

promotion measures to open markets for American businesses that are promising partners for comparable 

firms in developing countries. Credit for trade financing is critical. The United States strongly supported 

the G-20 call for international financial institutions and export credit facilities to assure adequate 

financing. The Administration is also coordinating all U.S. agencies to strengthen financing of small- and 

medium-sized American exporters. 

Reflect American Values in Trade Policy 

As trade’s share in the national economy has grown – approximately tripling since 1970 to 30 percent of 

GDP – the consequences of trade policy for American governance and society have grown as well. The 

growing scope and impact of trade policy led this Administration to pledge greater transparency in the 

crafting of a trade policy that is more reflective of American values. We have turned these pledges into 

actions and these values inform our approach to the broad range of activities we pursue, ranging from 

market opening measures, enforcing trade agreements, and ensuring that regulatory regimes are consistent 

with trade obligations. 

Reflecting American values in our trade policy begins with a keen appreciation of the relationship 

between trade and our workers, firms, farmers, and ranchers. It requires regular and thorough 

examination of how trade policy can best respond to the real people behind the shifting contours of the 

American economy – for instance, through increased attention to job-creating small- and medium-sized 

firms as the shift toward more sustainable and equitable growth for the United States decreases domestic 

consumption and increases the importance of exports. During the last 15 years, small- and medium-sized 

businesses have generated approximately 65 percent of all new jobs. It is for this reason that the U.S. 

Trade Representative designated an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business, Market 

Access and Industrial Competitiveness, who will coordinate the agency’s work on small- and mediumsized business trade priorities and enhance outreach to those firms, and why USTR has also requested 

extensive studies for delivery this year by the U.S. International Trade Commission on the export 

activities and potential of these key drivers of employment in the United States. We will continue to 
 

I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 14 

expand our focus on small and medium-sized firms’ concerns across the broad range of initiatives we are 

pursuing to open markets. 

We also have acted on this Administration’s commitment to greater transparency in trade policy. In the 

past year, USTR has revamped its public information and public outreach efforts, with a completely new 

website at http://www.ustr.gov and an embrace of social networking tools. This has improved the 

information available to the public about trade policy, while inviting a broader range of stakeholder 

comments. 

Membership on official trade advisory groups was reviewed to increase the diversity of perspectives from 

citizens with expertise on the issues. New membership rosters will be announced as committees come up 

for re-chartering, beginning in the first quarter of this year. In keeping with the President’s goal of 

reducing the influence of special interests on U.S. policy, the Administration also has announced that 

registered lobbyists will not be appointed (or reappointed) to these committees in the future. 

No trade policy can succeed without close cooperation with the Members and leadership of Congress. 

There is a lively debate in Congress over American trade policy. We promise to continue to fully inform 

and consult with all Members of Congress on all aspects of our trade policy, and will work closely with 

our committees of jurisdiction when defining priorities. We will fully and respectfully engage with 

Congress on finding ways to advance the goals and policies outlined in this Agenda. We are confident 

that the American people and their representatives in Congress can support trade agreements and policies 

that live up to the standards set in this Agenda, and we will seek appropriate Congressional authorities 

when needed. 

In addition, we have undertaken a review of the transparency policies for trade negotiations. 

Confidentiality remains an essential tool of diplomacy; but, timely public debate and review of major 

agreements is also essential. In the case of significant agreements that do not require Senate advice and 

consent or Congressional approval, USTR is introducing other means to assist meaningful public 

comment. For example, in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, USTR has laid out the policy 

premises for the negotiation and the details of the negotiating process more fully than in the past. USTR 

sought advice from a broad group of experts, including representatives of intellectual property 

rightsholders, Internet intermediaries, NGOs, and others, about prospective U.S. positions on IPR 

enforcement in the digital environment. And it won an endorsement from the countries in the negotiation 

of the importance of providing for meaningful public input to the negotiating process before its 

conclusion. 

We also have extended the expansion of comment and advice into the Special 301 process that pinpoints 

key challenges for U.S. intellectual property-based businesses affected by piracy, counterfeiting, and 

other forms of IPR theft. In 2010 we will introduce a more far-ranging public hearing to assure that 

Special 301 decisions are based on a robust understanding of complicated issues involving intellectual 

property. Our commitment to public engagement will contribute to the development and implementation 

of sound, well-balanced trade policies to ensure the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 

rights. And we reaffirm our commitment to preserving developing countries' ability to protect public 

health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, consistent with the principles laid out in 

the WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. 
I. The President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda | 15 

Conclusion 

A trade policy focused on the largest opportunities for increasing American exports and jobs, on opening 

markets and boosting innovation, and based on the principles of a rules-based global trading system can 

contribute powerfully to the President’s economic agenda for America. Our goal is sustainable economic 

growth that brings home the benefits of trade – including well-paying jobs – while also advancing global 

recovery. This will be done consistently with our goals for American values, including the rights of 

workers, environmental sustainability, and political accountability. 

This Administration is committed to the hard work necessary to harness trade policy as an engine of 

growth and prosperity for America and for the world. 

Ambassador Ron Kirk 

United States Trade Representative 

March 1, 2010 
II. The World Trade Organization | 1 

II. THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 

A. Introduction 

This chapter reviews the impact of the World Trade Organization (WTO) over its 15 year history, and 

outlines the work of the WTO in 2009 and the work anticipated for 2010. This work includes the 

multilateral trade negotiations launched at Doha, Qatar in November 2001, known as the Doha 

Development Agenda (DDA or Doha Round). This chapter details the ongoing work under the DDA as 

well as that of the WTO standing Committees and their subsidiary bodies and provides a review of the 

implementation and enforcement of the WTO Agreement. The chapter also covers the accession 

negotiations to expand the WTO’s membership to include governments seeking to reform their economies 

and join the rules-based global trading system. 

The United States remains strongly committed to the rules-based multilateral trading system, which 

advances the well-being of the people of the United States and of our trading partners. The World Trade 

Organization (WTO) continues to serve as the multilateral foundation of U.S. trade policy, playing a vital 

role as a vehicle for ensuring the ability of American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and service 

providers to pursue new economic opportunities while also enabling global growth and development. 

The United States continues to operate in a leadership role at the WTO, working to ensure that trade 

fulfills its potential as a powerful contributor to the revival of the global economy and the renewal of 

growth in which benefits are broadly shared. The WTO provides a forum for enforcing U.S. rights under 

the WTO agreements to ensure that Americans receive the many benefits of WTO membership. The 

WTO Agreements also provide a foundation for high standard U.S. bilateral and regional agreements that 

make a positive contribution to a dynamic and open global trading system based on the rule of law. On a 

day-to-day basis, the WTO provides opportunities for advancing U.S. interests through its more than 20 

standing Committees (not including numerous additional Working Groups, Working Parties, and 

Negotiating Bodies). These groups meet regularly to permit Members to exchange views, work to resolve 

questions of Members’ compliance with commitments, and develop initiatives aimed at systemic 

improvements. 

The DDA is the ninth round of multilateral trade negotiations to be carried out since the end of World 

War II. The DDA negotiations remain, along with the day-to-day implementation and enforcement of the 

rules governing world trade, a U.S. priority reflecting the imperative of continued multilateral trade 

liberalization as part of the foundation that contributes to stability and growth in a dynamic world 

economy. 

Throughout 2009, the United States worked to advance the Doha Round trade negotiations on to a course 

that would move the DDA forward toward a successful final agreement, and rallied other WTO Members 

to stay focused on achieving an ambitious market-opening outcome that would yield meaningful new 

trade flows and economic opportunities worldwide. WTO Members had in each of the previous three 

years sought to move the Doha negotiations into the end game through meetings of Ministers intended to 

reach agreement on modalities for agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA). Each such 

effort failed. Therefore, in 2009, the United States introduced a fresh approach. In meetings of Leaders 

and Ministers in various fora throughout the year, as well as through the work of senior officials in 

Geneva, the United States promoted not only a reenergized multilateral work process, but also 

supplemented such work with sustained, direct bilateral engagement between key players to close gaps on 

core issues of market access in industrial goods, agriculture, and services. The fall of 2009 saw these 

efforts begin to pay off. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 2 

 

2009 also offered an important demonstration of the WTO’s role as an effective bulwark against 

“protectionist” impulses. “Protectionism” was first recognized as a danger by G20 Leaders at the Summit 

in Washington, DC in November 2008, when Leaders specifically committed not to raise trade barriers 

for a twelve month period. Immediately following this Summit, WTO Members decided at a December 

2008 meeting of the WTO General Council that the WTO would monitor and report on newly imposed 

restrictive trade measures, utilizing the WTO’s existing Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) to fulfill the 

task. The United States actively participates in this monitoring and reporting process, which is not 

limited to G20 countries, but tracks the actions of all WTO Members and Observers. 

In January, March, July, and November 2009, the WTO Director-General and WTO Secretariat issued 

reports on trade and trade-related policy developments as related to the global financial and economic 

crisis. WTO Members reviewed the first three reports (issued in January, March, and July) at TPRB 

meetings in February, April, and July 2009, respectively. The November 2009 report is to be reviewed at 

a February 2010 TPRB meeting. 

The Director-General’s early reports articulated fears of “significant slippage” in the fight against 

protectionism. However, reports later in the year noted that the resort to so-called “high intensity” 

protectionist measures had been contained overall and that there have been numerous instances of 

countries taking trade liberalizing and facilitating measures in response to the crisis. Put to the test, the 

multilateral trading system has held firm. Both the presence of WTO rules and very visible monitoring 

efforts at the WTO contributed to creating an environment in which Members were able to reshape and 

reconsider measures that might otherwise have triggered a protectionist spiral. However, continued 

vigilance remains important. In addition to work done at the TPRB, the day-to-day work of the WTO 

remains instrumental in buttressing multilateral efforts to contain protectionist impulses. Members must 

continue to use the standing WTO committees and other WTO bodies to shine a spotlight on individual 

Members’ actions. Through discussions in these fora, Members seek detailed information on these 

actions and collectively consider them in light of WTO rules and their impact on individual Members and 

the system as a whole. The Members whose actions are being considered are then better able to factor 

trade concerns into domestic policy-making and avoid these concerns when pursuing various initiatives. 

G20 Leaders renewed their commitment to resist “protectionism” at Summits in London in April 2009 

and in Pittsburgh in September 2009. Similar political commitments were also repeated in 2009 in APEC 

and by other WTO Members. As 2009 ended, the economic crisis continued to highlight the importance 

of maintaining and expanding open markets, setting the stage for further efforts in 2010 to successfully 

conclude the Doha Round negotiations. In order to support the G-20 Leaders’ commitments to resist 

protectionist measures, the public monitoring by the WTO of Members’ trade measures aimed at 

restricting trade will also continue in 2010. 

Finally, the WTO held its seventh Ministerial Conference, from November 30 to December 2, 2009. 

Held in Geneva, the conference’s theme was “The WTO, the Multilateral Trading System, and the 

Current Global Economic Environment”. The Ministerial Conference served as a low-key forum to allow 

Members to reflect on the role of the WTO and to review its ongoing work, including the Doha 

negotiations. The meeting featured a Plenary Session that lasted the entire session, along with two 

parallel Working Sessions. The Working Sessions focused on two broad sub-themes: Review of WTO 

activities, including the Doha Work Program; and the WTO’s contribution to recovery, growth and 

development. Ministers agreed that the next Ministerial Conference will be held in 2011. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 3 

B. The WTO at 15 and American Interests 

2010 marks 15 years since the United States became an original member of the World Trade 

Organization. In that time, the WTO has proven its worth as the bedrock of an open, rules-based global 

trading system. Through the rules and institutions that are already in place, the WTO has served to 

advance the interests of America’s farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and service providers by providing 

them with certainty, transparency and stability in their efforts to compete for the business of the 95 

percent of consumers who live outside the United States. Through its ongoing committee work and 

dispute settlement procedures, the WTO has provided a vehicle to address unfair foreign trade practices to 

ensure that the United States receives the benefits of WTO rules. And as a forum to pursue further 

multilateral trade liberalization in the Doha Round, the WTO provides Americans and people throughout 

the globe with the opportunity to pursue new economic opportunities for growth and development. 

Created in 1995 as part of the results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral negotiations, in 2009 the WTO 

and its Members were called upon to fulfill a core role for which the organization and its predecessor 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were created – ensuring stable, open markets in the 

face of financial and economic crisis. Through the rules and monitoring efforts of the WTO, the world 

took a very different path in 2009 from that in the 1930s, when market-closing protectionist actions and 

reactions served to deepen and lengthen the Great Depression. Determined to avoid this dynamic, and to 

strengthen global security and peace through economic opportunity and growth in living standards, 20 

founders created the GATT in 1947. That number reached 119 when the WTO was established in 1995, 

and now stands at 153, as the economic benefits of participation in the rules-based, multilateral trading 

system embodied in the WTO continue to attract new Members. 

While the multilateral trading system has proven its worth by helping to maintain open markets in a time 

of economic crisis, its principal contribution since the signing of the GATT has been to expand open 

markets and create economic opportunity. The positive negotiating agenda of the GATT and WTO has 

been the expansion of economic opportunities through sustained reductions in global barriers to 

international commerce and enhanced trade and economic prosperity, in the context of a rules-based 

global trading system. The Uruguay Round (1986-1993) was the eighth such round since GATT was 

signed to pursue this objective, and brought new areas such as services, intellectual property rights (IPR) 

and agriculture fully into the global trading system. As described further below, the United States is 

pursuing further market-opening benefits through the achievement of an ambitious and balanced outcome 

to the Doha Round negotiations. 

Multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT were central to post-War trade liberalization, and broader 

post-War institution-building aimed at enhancing global stability and security. The creation of the WTO 

was a central element of the success of six decades of negotiating efforts under the GATT. The creation 

of the WTO was a major step in the building of an open, rules-based global trading system that has 

greatly benefitted Americans. According to the 2005 findings of the Peterson Institute for International 

Economics, which considered a number of studies, cross-border trade and investment liberalization added 

roughly $1 trillion to Americans’ annual income by 2003. The range of various estimates reported was 

between “$2,800 to $5,000 additional income for the average person and between $7,100 and $12,900 for 

the average household.”1

 

A recent investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission, reporting on U.S. trade policy since 

1934, reviewed formal academic studies of the income gain to the United States from the Uruguay Round 

 

1

 The United States and the World Economy, C. Fred Bergsten and the Institute for International Economics, 

January 2005, Washington, DC, page 68. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 4 

 

alone. The income gains to Americans from the Uruguay Round in the 5 studies reviewed ranged from 

0.1 percent and 0.9 percent of GDP2

, which, in terms of 2008 GDP is between $14 billion and $130 

billion. 

Organizationally, the WTO continues to stand out within the world of international organizations by 

continuing to maintain a ‘lean’ approach to secretariat staffing, avoiding the growth of any bloated 

bureaucracy. With the United States leading the way at various points, the WTO has taken steps to 

increase the transparency of its operation across the board, from document availability to public outreach. 

Work continues on new and creative ways to bring further improvements in openness. WTO Members 

continue to set the course for the organization, and the Members themselves remain responsible for 

compliance with rules. U.S. leadership within the WTO will continue to be critical to advancing U.S. 

interests in the global trading system, to help restore global economic recovery and growth and to expand 

economic opportunity and the rule of law. 

1994-2008: Performance of the U.S. Economy 

Since the establishment of the WTO in1995, the overall performance of the U.S. economy has been 

consistent with the view that the WTO has served the interests of America and the American people. In 

2009, U.S. participation in the WTO continued to serve American interests, in particular through its 

contribution to preventing protectionist responses to the financial and economic crisis that could have 

deepened that crisis. Because this contribution is not fully reflected in the broad economic trends since 

1994, and to highlight the critical importance of the WTO in 2009, the following discussions first focus 

on the period 1994-2008 and then on 2009. 

From 1994 to 2008 real gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States increased by 50 percent (2.9 

percent annual average), with an average per capita real income increase by 30 percent (1.9 percent 

annual average). 

Within the GDP, real manufacturing output increased by 50 percent between 1994 and 2008, apace with 

the overall growth of the economy. This increase was led by a better than 1,500 percent increase in U.S. 

output of computer and electronic equipment. 

Non-farm employment in the United States increased by nearly 20 percent, or by 22.8 million, between 

1994 and 2008. The rate of unemployment averaged a little less than 5.1 percent over the period. Real 

hourly work compensation rose by 21 percent for employees of non-farm U.S. business between 1994 and 

2008. 

Despite substantial growth in manufacturing output and overall employment, employment in 

manufacturing has shrunk considerably, by 21 percent, or by nearly 3.6 million jobs. In 1994, 

manufacturing accounted for 1-in-7 U.S. jobs, a figure that had fallen to 1-in-10 jobs in 2008. 

The decline in manufacturing employment reflects in part, much more rapid increases in output per hour 

worked (productivity) in the U.S. manufacturing sector than in the economy as a whole. Between 1994 

and 2008, output per hour worked in manufacturing increased by 70 percent, much more rapidly than the 

still strong 40 percent increase in output per hour in the entire U.S. non-farm economy. 

 

2

 The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restraints, Sixth Update 2009, United States International Trade 

Commission, Publication 4094, August 2009, Washington, DC, page 103. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 5 

Productivity growth is among the most important factors influencing how rapidly real incomes grow and 

living standards rise. Among the expected benefits of trade liberalization is to shift economic resources 

toward more productive uses and to encourage investment in competitive industries. WTO rules, dispute 

settlement procedures and the predictability they provide, along with Uruguay Round trade liberalization, 

have likely played a positive role in some of the favorable developments in the U.S. economy for much of 

the period since 1994. 

Further reductions in trade barriers since 1994, many of which stem from the phase-in of Uruguay Round 

commitments, have helped increase the value of trade 

relative to the U.S. economy. U.S. trade in goods and 

services (exports plus imports) has risen from 22 percent 

of U.S. GDP to 30 percent in 2008. Real exports over 

the period increased rapidly, by 112 percent, while real 

imports increased more rapidly still, at 143 percent. 

The U.S. trade deficit in current dollars rose from $93 

billion in 1994 (1.3 percent of GDP) to a peak of $769 

billion in 2006 (5.7 percent of GDP), before falling back 

to $708 billion (4.9 percent of GDP) in 2008. The rise 

of the aggregate trade imbalance reflects many, largely 

macroeconomic factors, such as differential growth rates, different rates of saving and investment, 

international capital flows and monetary policy. 

Market-opening trade policy in general should be assessed in areas where it does have effect: in 

expanding opportunities for trade, contributing to higher productivity and earnings, lowering prices and 

increase choice for household consumers and business purchasers alike, encouraging beneficial 

investment, and helping to enhance domestic living standards and rates of economic growth. Against 

these measures, U.S. economic performance in 1994-2008 is consistent with a country drawing advantage 

from more open markets, freer trade and a more predictable international trading system, manifested by 

not only the Uruguay Round outcome but in particular the WTO. 

2009: Performance of the U.S. Economy 

In 2009, the world economy slipped into deep recession and major counter-recessionary economic policy 

actions were taken by governments around the globe. Among these actions were repeated commitments 

by Leaders to resist the increase in barriers to international trade. In the 1930s, government policy actions 

had not been able to avert the worst of a major global depression. Among the more notable policy 

mistakes of the 1930s was the widespread reversion to highly restrictive trade policies, as countries 

sought to restore economic activity and jobs at home by driving out imports. There was no WTO then to 

restrain these trade restrictive actions. As many resorted to such trade restrictive actions, individual 

countries and the global economy suffered all the more, contributing to overall international instability 

during the years leading up to World War II. 

The lessons of the 1930s were not lost in the last two years, in part because of 60 years of bipartisan U.S. 

leadership and broad-based multilateral efforts to build an open, rules-based global trading system 

through the GATT and then the WTO. The WTO and U.S. participation in that organization have proved 

extremely valuable to U.S. efforts to contain the recession, by avoiding the resort to protectionism in 

global markets. 

Looking ahead, the Administration has underscored that exports promise to play an important role in U.S. 

economic recovery. Exports contributed 1.9 percentage points to the annualized real GDP growth rate of 

Exports and Jobs. In 2010 and beyond, 

increased exports are one of our most promising 

avenues to support additional jobs for 

Americans. The President has committed to 

doubling exports in the next five years, an 

increase that will support two million jobs in 

America. With a return of the U.S. economy to 

positive growth, exports contributed 1.9 

percentage points to the annualized growth rate 

of 4.0 percent in the second half of 2009. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 6 

 

4.0 percent in the second half of 2009. Pronouncements by Leaders at G-20 summits in 2009 made clear 

that, for the sake of stable and growing prosperity, major economies must work together to rebalance the 

world economy, in part by moderating the size of global deficits and surpluses in trade. For the United 

States this may mean less rapid growth of current consumption for a period as the country saves, invests, 

produces and exports more. Counterpart measures in large surplus countries include raising domestic 

consumption and increasing imports. 

The rules-based trading system under the helm of the WTO is at the core of U.S. efforts to ensure that all 

countries respect their commitments and play by the rules. For the United States, which is likely to 

experience considerable export growth, the rules-based trading system assuring foreign market access is a 

necessity. Competitive global markets, a rebalanced world economy and sound economic policies can 

help assure future prosperity at home. The WTO is among the institutions which work in favor of such an 

outcome for the United States. 

1994 to 2009: Changes in Trade Flows 

Reflecting severely recessionary conditions, the volume of global trade fell sharply over the last year, 

down roughly 12 percent in 2009, according to estimates of the International Monetary Fund. The world 

recession similarly affected the volume of U.S. goods and services trade, down 15 percent in 2009 

(annualized based on the first 3 quarters) as well as the nominal value of U.S. goods and services trade, 

down by 22 percent in 2009 (annualized based on the first 11 months on 2009). Despite this downturn in 

2009, nominal U.S. trade in goods and services has increased during the 15-year timeframe of the 

existence of the WTO, up 126 percent between 1994 and 2009, with U.S. exports of goods and services 

up 117 percent and U.S. imports of goods and services up 135 percent. U.S. goods exports, accounting 

for nearly 70 percent of U.S. goods and services exports, are up 103 percent while U.S. services exports 

are up 152 percent. U.S. goods imports, accounting for 80 percent of U.S. goods and services imports, 

are up 127 percent while U.S. services imports are up 177 percent. 

For U.S. goods exports, both U.S. manufacturing exports and U.S. agricultural exports grew strongly 

between 1994 and 2009, up 95 percent and 114 percent, respectively, despite each suffering nearly 20 

percent declines in 2009 (see Annex 1, Table 1). Manufacturing exports accounted for over 80 percent of 

the $1 trillion in U.S. goods exports in 2009 (under Census definitions), while agricultural exports 

accounted for 10 percent and mineral fuels and mining products accounted for 9 percent. U.S. exports of 

high technology products grew by 98 percent during the past 15 years and accounted for 23 percent of 

total goods exports. Non-automotive capital goods, the largest U.S. end-use export category accounting 

for 37 percent of total goods exports in 2009, grew by 88 percent between 1994 and 2009. Industrial 

supplies, the second largest U.S. end-use export category accounting for 28 percent of U.S. goods exports 

in 2009, grew by 135 percent during the past 15 years. 

Regionally, U.S. goods exports to developing countries grew by 141 percent between 1994 and 2009, 

significantly higher than the 70 percent growth to industrial countries (as defined by the International 

Monetary Fund) (see Annex 1, Table 2). Due to this rapid growth in exports to developing countries, the 

majority of U.S. exports (51 percent) are to developing countries. Among major countries and regions, 

exports to China exhibited the fastest growth, nearly 612 percent over the past 15 years to an estimated 

$66 billion in 2009. During this period, U.S. exports to Mexico more than doubled, while exports to 

Canada and the EU grew by 74 percent and 98 percent, respectively. However, weak economic 

conditions in Japan were a factor toward limiting the growth in that country, with U.S. exports falling by 

7 percent between 1994 and 2009. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 7 

All of the major services export categories have 

grown between 1994 and 2009 (see Annex 1, 

Table 5). Export growth has been led by the 

statistical “private services category consisting 

of: education services, financial services, 

insurance, telecommunications, business, 

professional and technical services; and other 

unaffiliated services (up 277 percent), and the 

royalties and licensing fees category (up 210 

percent). Of the nearly $304 billion increase in 

U.S. services exports between 1994 and 2009, 

the other private services category accounted 

for 55 percent of the increase and the royalties 

and licensing fees category accounted for 19 

percent. 

Since 1994, the United States continued to be a 

strong catalyst for global growth for most of 

these years, reflecting the strong growth of the U.S economy (up an overall 45 percent between 1994 and 

2009 despite a 3.3 percent decline in 2009). U.S. goods imports more than doubled between 1994 and 

2009, with U.S. manufacturing imports up 108 percent, U.S. agricultural imports up 175 percent, and high 

technology imports up 199 percent (see Annex 1, Table 3). U.S. imports increased substantially in all of 

the major end-use categories with the strongest growth exhibited in consumer goods (up 189 percent) and 

industrial supplies (up 170 percent). These two sectors combined accounted for 57 percent of the total 

level of U.S. goods imports. Within U.S. industrial supplies, petroleum imports increased 362 percent, 

from 8 percent of total goods imports in 1994 to 16 percent in 2009. 

Regionally, U.S. import growth in 1994 to 2009 was more than three times as strong from developing 

countries as from industrial countries (220 percent to 60 percent) (see Annex 1, Table 4). Due to this 

growth, the total level of U.S. goods imports from developing countries was greater than industrial 

countries in 2009 (60 percent to 40 percent), reversing what the situation was in 1994 (43 percent to 57 

percent). As with exports, the strongest import growth was from China, up 655 percent, and from 

Mexico, up 245 percent. U.S. imports from Japan, however, declined by 22 percent between 1994 and 

2009. 

The growth in services imports, up $236 billion between 1994 and 2009, was driven by the other private 

services category (accounting for 52 percent of the increase) (see Annex 1, Table 6). U.S. imports from 

this category were up 386 percent between 1994 and 2009. All of the other major services categories also 

grew since 1994, with categories such as the royalties and licensing fees category up 312 percent and 

direct defense expenditures category up 248 percent. 

C. The Doha Development Agenda under the Trade Negotiations 

Committee 

The DDA was launched in Doha, Qatar in November 2001, at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference 

where Ministers provided a mandate for negotiations on a range of subjects and work in WTO 

Committees. In addition, the mandate gives further direction on the WTO’s existing work program and 

implementation of the WTO Agreement. The goal of the DDA is to reduce trade barriers in order to 

expand global economic growth, development, and opportunity. The main focus of the negotiations 

under the DDA is in the following areas: agriculture; industrial goods market access; services; trade 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 8 

 

facilitation; WTO rules (i.e., trade remedies, fish subsidies, and regional trade agreements); and 

development. 

The Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), established at the WTO’s Fourth Ministerial Conference in 

Doha, oversees the agenda and negotiations in cooperation with the WTO General Council. The WTO 

Director General serves as Chairman of the TNC and worked closely with the Chairman of the General 

Council for 2009, Ambassador Mario Matus of Chile. Through formal and informal processes, the 

Chairman of the General Council, along with the WTO Director General, plays a central role in steering 

efforts toward progress on the DDA. (Annex II identifies the various negotiating groups and special 

bodies responsible for the negotiations, some of which are the responsibility of the WTO General 

Council.) 

Discussions under the DDA in 2009 occurred against the backdrop of global efforts to address the 

international financial crisis, underscoring the importance of an ambitious Doha result that would result in 

new trade opportunities and thereby contribute to global economic recovery and growth. 

As 2009 began, WTO Members were coming off the third successive year of unsuccessful efforts by 

small groups of Ministers to move the negotiations into the final stage by reaching a comprehensive 

agreement on modalities – the framework of variables that would define the depth of tariff cutting and 

other commitments and the extent of flexibilities in agriculture and non-agricultural market access 

(NAMA). Going into 2009, the core challenge of Doha remained unresolved, i.e., whether negotiators 

could secure the meaningful new market access in agriculture, NAMA and services necessary—

particularly in terms of contributions by advanced developing countries—to fulfill the promise of Doha to 

create new economic opportunities and contribute to global development and growth. The recent 

emergence of China, Brazil, and India as recognized “majors” within the WTO represented an important 

step forward, moving the overall negotiating dynamic to more closely reflect the dynamic economic 

reality of today’s trading system. As today’s fastest growing economies, China, Brazil and India have 

enjoyed a new level of influence and each will be expected to take-on an increased level of responsibility 

to make the trade liberalizing decisions and contributions that would benefit not only its own economic 

interests, but also promote global economic growth and development to the benefit of all developing 

countries – as well as ensuring that the global trading system operates consistent with global economic 

realities. 

Faced with previous failed attempts to move the Doha negotiations forward, the United States led efforts 

throughout 2009 to reorient the negotiating process onto a path to success, by pursuing new approaches to 

address significant gaps on core market access issues. The goal, as encapsulated by President Obama in a 

mid-November speech in Japan, is to work towards “an ambitious and balanced Doha agreement—not 

any agreement, but an agreement that will open up markets and increase exports around the world.” The 

United States concluded that the most effective means of reaching this goal is to supplement multilateral 

negotiating efforts with sustained, direct, bilateral engagement between key players, including advanced 

emerging economies such as China, Brazil, and India. Working with other Members in Geneva and 

elsewhere, the United States developed this approach over the course of the year and undertook efforts to 

begin this process of engagement. 

In a May visit to Geneva, Ambassador Ron Kirk urged exploration of ways to put the negotiations on a 

path to success, emphasizing the ultimate objective of delivering meaningful new market access, and not 

simply preserving the status quo. Ambassador Ron Kirk continued to press for a more positive direction 

in the Doha negotiations on the margins of Ministerial meetings of the Cairns Group in early June, the 

OECD in late June, APEC in late July and the AGOA Forum in early August, as well as in early 

September, when India hosted an informal meeting of over 35 Ministers in Delhi. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 9 

From July 8-10, the Leaders of the G-8 and G-5 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy expressed their commitment to 

a Doha success, in 2010. Recognizing the need for new approaches to the negotiations, Leaders 

instructed Ministers to explore immediately all possible avenues for direct engagement within the WTO, 

ahead of the September G-20 Leaders meeting in Pittsburgh. APEC Ministers echoed these sentiments in 

a July 22 statement following meetings in Singapore. On September 25, the G-20 Leaders also expressed 

their determination to seek a 2010 conclusion to the Doha Round, and again emphasized the need for 

direct engagement, stating, “We understand the need for countries to directly engage with each other, 

within the WTO bearing in mind the centrality of the multilateral process, in order to evaluate and close 

the remaining gaps.” 

In Geneva, various negotiating groups gradually reenergized their work over the course of the year, 

meeting in various formal and informal settings to advance work on technical and substantive issues. In 

particular, the fall witnessed numerous meetings of several groups including the Agriculture, NAMA, 

Services, Rules and Trade Facilitation negotiating groups. Much of this work proceeded according to 

work plans developed by the Chairs of these groups, and included monthly meetings in Geneva by Senior 

Officials. 

The Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference took place in Geneva from November 30 to December 2, 

2009, with the theme “The WTO, the Multilateral Trading System, and the Current Global Economic 

Environment”. The Ministerial Conference was not intended to be a Doha negotiating session, but 

instead operated as a low-key forum to allow Members to reflect on the role of the WTO and to review its 

ongoing work, including the Doha negotiations. Ministers spent substantial time in their statements 

commenting on the importance of the Doha Round and expressing their views on various aspects of the 

negotiations. In his summary of Member discussions at the meeting, the Chair of the Ministerial 

Conference, Chilean Trade Minister Andrés Velasco, noted that Ministers reaffirmed the aim to conclude 

the Round in 2010 and for a stock-taking exercise to take place in the first quarter of 2010. 

Prospects for 2010 

As the negotiations under the DDA continue in 2010, the linchpin to Doha Round success will remain 

securing meaningful market access commitments in agriculture, NAMA and services, particularly from 

key advanced developing countries that have been the fastest growing economies and are increasingly key 

players in the global economy. To generate the kind of economic growth, development, and poverty 

alleviation that WTO Members committed to when they launched the Doha Round in 2001, key emerging 

markets must take on the additional responsibilities that come with their increased influence in the global 

economy and make commitments that result in meaningful new trade flows. 

The United States will continue to play a leadership role and work with other WTO Members in various 

configurations in pursuit of a successful conclusion to the Doha Round that opens new markets and 

creates new trade flows. The challenge in 2010 will continue to be how to translate the expressions of 

political will, into concrete and specific details that will enable WTO Members to complete the work 

begun with the launch of negotiations at the Doha meeting. 

1. Committee on Agriculture, Special Session 

Status 

Negotiations in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture are conducted under the mandate 

agreed upon at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar that calls for “substantial 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 10 

 

improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; 

and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.” This mandate, calling for ambitious 

results in three areas (so-called “pillars”), was augmented with specific provisions for agriculture in the 

framework agreed by the General Council on August 1, 2004, and at the Hong Kong Ministerial 

Conference in December 2005. 

Major Issues in 2009 

Throughout 2009, the United States continued to lead the effort to move the DDA agriculture negotiations 

forward toward a successful final agreement and to rally other WTO Members to stay focused on 

achieving an ambitious market-opening outcome that would yield meaningful new trade flows. 

Ambassador David Walker assumed the Chair of the Agriculture Negotiations in the spring of 2009 and 

chaired meetings through the remainder of the year in various formal and informal settings seeking to 

advance work on technical and substantive issues. 

Ambassador Walker organized his efforts into two separate tracks: the “template” work on formats for 

schedules, and efforts to resolve the outstanding issues in the draft agriculture text. The template exercise 

focuses on identifying the precise data sets and specifying the common formats Members will use to 

prepare the schedules of commitments on domestic supports, export subsidies and market access. This 

activity occurred in the broad-based multilateral forum. Ambassador Walker also initiated Senior Official 

discussions on certain outstanding issues in the December 2008 draft text, specifically on the bracketed 

elements, or elements that the previous Chair explicitly identified as unresolved. Work on both tracks 

continued though the end of 2009.

Prospects for 2010

As the work on scheduling templates and outstanding modality issues continues in 2010, the linchpin to 

Doha Round success will remain securing meaningful market access commitments in agriculture and 

other areas, particularly from key advanced developing countries that have been the fastest growing 

economies and are increasingly key players in the global economy. 

The U.S. objectives for agriculture reform will continue to focus on the principles of greater 

harmonization across WTO Members, substantial overall reforms, and specific commitments of interest in 

key developed and developing country Member markets. The United States seeks balanced, ambitious 

results for each of the three pillars. An ambitious outcome is the best way to fulfill the promise of the 

Doha Round. 

2. Council for Trade in Services, Special Session 

Status 

The Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services (CTS-SS) was formed in 2000 pursuant to the 

Uruguay Round mandate of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) to undertake new 

multi-sectoral services negotiations. The Doha Declaration of November 2001 recognized the work 

already undertaken in the services negotiations and set deadlines for initial market access requests and 

offers. The services negotiations thus became one of the core market access pillars of the Doha Round, 

along with agriculture and non-agricultural goods. A strong and ambitious result in services is essential 

for a successful outcome of the Doha Round. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 11 

The 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration called for the negotiations to proceed to conclusion with a 

view to promoting the economic growth of all trading partners, with due respect for the right of Members 

to regulate in their domestic markets. The Hong Kong Declaration provided a framework for intensifying 

the negotiations, with the goal of encouraging Members to improve their commitments by removing 

significant limitations and covering a broader range of service sectors and supply channels (i.e., crossborder supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and presence of natural persons). To 

complement the existing bilateral request-offer process, the Hong Kong Declaration also encouraged 

negotiations to proceed on a plurilateral basis. Members subsequently developed a “plurilateral request 

process,” through which like-minded Members joined together to develop collective market access 

requests for 21 sectors and issues of interest. The United States joined in co-sponsoring requests in the 

following 13 areas: architectural, engineering and integrated engineering services; audiovisual services; 

computer and related services; construction and related engineering services; distribution services; private 

education services; energy services; environmental services; financial services; legal services; Mode 3 

(commercial presence); postal/courier services including express delivery; and telecommunication 

services. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The Council was relatively inactive during 2009, as several advanced developing country Members such 

as Brazil and China continued to resist advancing the services negotiations until there were breakthroughs 

in the NAMA and agriculture negotiations. Efforts to re-energize the services negotiations in the fall of 

2009 succeeded in bringing negotiators together for two series (so-called “clusters”) of services meetings 

in October and November. However, the tenor of those meetings was subdued. The topic of rules for the 

special treatment of least-developed country Members received additional attention toward the end of 

2009 as more Members became involved in the development of a draft waiver from the most-favorednation obligation. 

Overall, progress to date in the negotiations has been incremental, such that considerably more work will 

be necessary to achieve the extent of services liberalization necessary for a positive outcome of the 

negotiations. The United States continues to press for a high level of ambition for services liberalization, 

particularly from the major emerging markets, in such key areas as computer and telecommunication 

services; distribution and express delivery; energy and environmental services; and financial services. 

Efforts by the United States in the CTS-SS to promote new ideas for propelling the negotiations forward 

have thus far met with resistance from other Members. 

Prospects for 2010 

Progress in 2010 will depend in large part on the willingness of other Members to move forward on 

services, which in turn will be influenced by the work in other areas of the single undertaking. The 

United States will continue to pursue new ideas and approaches for achieving a successful outcome to the 

services negotiations. In addition, work is likely to continue on the draft waiver for least-developed 

countries. 

3. Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) 

Status 

In the negotiations on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA), which cover industrial goods, fish, and 

fish products, the United States continues to seek significant new competitive opportunities for U.S. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 12 

 

businesses through cuts in applied tariff rates, and the reduction of non-tariff barriers. USTR negotiators 

are pursuing these market access goals through multilateral, plurilateral, and bilateral channels. 

Trade in industrial goods accounts for over 90 

percent of world merchandise trade3

 and more than 

90 percent of total U.S. goods exports. An 

ambitious outcome in the NAMA negotiations is 

thus critical, as it would provide an important 

opportunity to lower tariffs on manufactured 

products in key emerging markets like Brazil, 

India, and China, which are among the fastest 

growing economies in the world. Many emerging 

economies still retain prohibitive tariffs on 

manufactured goods, with ceiling tariff rates 

exceeding 150 percent in some cases. And because 

roughly 70 percent of the tariffs on goods traded by 

developing countries are paid to other developing 

countries, tariff liberalization under the Doha 

Round will have a direct and significant development impact. 

Major Issues in 2009 

In 2009, the Negotiating Group on NAMA focused primarily on advancing the agenda on non-tariff 

barriers (NTBs), which are an integral and equally important component of the NAMA negotiations. In 

line with the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, WTO Members continued to consider how NTBs 

could be addressed horizontally across all sectors, vertically within a single sector, and through a bilateral 

request/offer process. The United States sponsors NTB proposals on autos and automotive products; 

electronics; textiles, apparel, footwear, and travel goods labeling (with the EU, Mauritius, and Sri Lanka); 

remanufactured goods (with Japan and Switzerland); and transparency in export licensing (with Japan, 

Chinese Taipei, and the Republic of Korea). 

Work throughout the year focused on priority NTB proposals agreed by Senior Officials in June 2008 and 

reflected in the NAMA Chair’s draft texts of both July and December 2008. These proposals include 

autos and automotive products, electronics, textiles labeling, remanufactured goods, the “horizontal 

mechanism” (an additional procedure Members could use after the Round to address NTBs), and 

chemicals. Early in 2009, as a way to promote substantive discussion, the Chair invited Members to 

submit detailed questions on the priority proposals. In July 2009, the Chair set out a robust agenda for 

the fall, with negotiating weeks in September, November, and December. In addition to continuing the 

question and answer process, proponents were encouraged to submit revised negotiating texts. In 

September, the U.S. submitted revised texts on each of its sponsored proposals. The EU submitted 

proposals on automotive products and electronics, both of which diverge from the U.S. texts on the same 

sectors. Throughout the fall, Members engaged in detailed technical discussions – both within the 

negotiating group and domestically with experts and industries – to gain a better understanding on the 

substance of the proposals and to work towards consensus on them. The United States continues to 

engage fully in these discussions and remains a major proponent of eliminating or reducing NTBs in the 

DDA. 

 

3

 WTO, International Trade Statistics 2009 

Tariff Profiles for Selected WTO Members

Markets

% of Tariffs 

with

WTO Ceiling

WTO Ceiling 

Tariff 

Average*

2008 Applied 

Tariff 

Average

United States 100% 3.9 3.9

European Union 100% 3.9 4

Argentina 100% 31.8 11.9

Brazil 100% 30.8 14.1

China 100% 9.1 8.7

Egypt 99.2% 27.7 9.2

India 69.8% 34.7 10.1

Philippines 61.8% 23.4 5.7

South Africa 96.1% 15.7 7.6

Source: WTO World Tariff Profiles 2009, U.S. International Trade Commission

* This calculation excludes products with no legal WTO ceiling rate.
II. The World Trade Organization | 13 

On tariffs, there are several negotiating elements under discussion that will determine the market opening 

outcome in NAMA: (1) the tariff-cutting formula and specifics on the level of ambition to be achieved by 

developed and developing country Members; (2) the scope of exceptions available to developing 

countries applying the tariff-cutting formula; (3) flexibilities to be provided for least-developed country 

(LDC) Members and other developing country Members; and (4) a sectoral tariff component. 

The Chair’s text from December 2008 proposed a choice between three coefficients4

 (20, 22 and 25 

depending on the level of flexibilities taken) for the approximately thirty self-designated developing 

countries5

 that are expected to apply the tariff cutting Swiss 

formula, and a coefficient of 8 for developed countries. This 

package presents a fundamental imbalance, whereby the United 

States and other developed countries would reduce all tariffs to 

below eight percent, while emerging economies would not only 

maintain much higher tariff rates, but extensive exclusions from the 

general tariff cutting rules would permit them to avoid making 

tariff reductions on hundreds, and sometimes thousands of 

important manufactured products. In order to correct this 

imbalance and effectively achieve the market access objectives laid 

out in the Doha mandate, the United States has continued to 

promote multilateral sectoral tariff elimination initiatives. To date, 

Members have proposed fourteen sectors that are being considered 

for such agreements. U.S. negotiators have also reached out to key 

emerging markets – namely China, Brazil, and India – to engage in 

direct bilateral discussions on how these countries can make a more 

economically meaningful market-opening contribution that will 

benefit U.S. exporters. 

Throughout 2009, the United States and like-minded Members 

continued efforts to build momentum for sectoral initiatives by 

focusing on the technical aspects of individual sectors. Sector cosponsors have provided Members with detailed trade and tariff 

information on each sector, as well as global trade and investment 

trends, to allow major traders and producers to evaluate the 

significant commercial benefits that could be realized through 

meaningful and broad-based sectoral liberalization. This technical information will be the basis for 

further discussions aimed towards crafting sectoral modalities that can work for all potential participants 

and ultimately yield ambitious and meaningful outcomes that will benefit the entire WTO Membership. 

 

4

 A Swiss formula is a progressive non-linear formula under which high tariffs are cut more than low tariffs. The 

Swiss coefficient sets a ceiling that tariffs approach but never reach, thus determining the overall level of ambition 

of the formula. The lower the number, the more aggressive the tariff cuts. Members are negotiating the coefficients 

to be used in the Swiss formula to determine the depth of tariff cuts for developed country Members and the depth of 

the tariff cuts for developing country Members. 5

 Argentina; Bahrain; Brazil; Chile; China; Chinese Taipei; Colombia; Costa Rica; Croatia; Egypt; Hong Kong 

China; India; Indonesia; Israel; Korea; Kuwait; Malaysia; Mexico; Morocco; Oman; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; 

Qatar; Singapore; South Africa; Thailand; Tunisia; Turkey; Venezuela; and UAE. There is some discussion on the 

development status of Chinese Taipei, Korea, and Croatia for the purposes of these negotiations. 

Work continues on the following 

sectoral tariff initiatives, 

proposed by various Members: 

 chemicals; 

 electronics/electrical 

products; 

 industrial machinery;

 forest products; 

 healthcare products 

(pharmaceuticals and 

medical equipment);

 fish and fish products; 

 autos and related parts; 

 bicycles and related parts; 

 gems and jewelry; 

 sports equipment; 

 textiles, clothing and 

footwear; 

 hand tools; 

 raw materials; and

 toys 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 14 

 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, U.S. negotiators will continue to press for economically meaningful new market access for U.S. 

manufactured goods – both in terms of reduced foreign tariffs and non-tariff barriers – and will engage 

with key advanced developing trading partners both bilaterally and multilaterally to achieve that 

objective. The United States remains committed to the view that true development gains can best be 

achieved through further real market liberalization by both developed and developing Members. 

4. Negotiating Group on Rules 

Status 

At the Doha Ministerial Conference in 2001, Ministers agreed to negotiations aimed at clarifying and 

improving disciplines under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the 

Antidumping Agreement) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM 

Agreement), while preserving the basic concepts, principles, and effectiveness of these Agreements and 

their instruments and objectives. Ministers also directed that the negotiations take into account the needs 

of developing and least-developed country Members. The Doha Round mandate also calls for clarified 

and improved WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies. 

The Negotiating Group on Rules (the Rules Group) has based its work primarily on written submissions 

from Members, organizing its work in the following categories: (1) the antidumping remedy, often 

including similar issues relating to the countervailing duty remedy; (2) subsidies, including fisheries 

subsidies; and (3) regional trade agreements. Since the Rules Group began its work in 2002, numerous 

papers and proposals have been submitted and have been subject to focused discussions in various 

settings. In 2005, the Chair also established a Technical Group as part of the Rules Group’s work to 

examine in detail certain technical issues relating to antidumping. 

The Rules Group received further direction at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December 2005. 

On fisheries subsidies, Ministers acknowledged broad agreement on stronger rules, including a 

prohibition of the most harmful subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, and appropriate 

effective special and differential treatment for developing country Members. Ministers also directed the 

Rules Chairman to prepare consolidated texts of the Antidumping and SCM Agreements, taking account 

of progress in other areas of the negotiations. In November 2007, the Chairman of the Rules Group 

issued draft consolidated texts on antidumping, on subsidies and countervailing measures (“horizontal 

subsidies”, i.e. subsidies that apply across all sectors of the economy), and on fisheries subsidies. 

Prior to the meeting of Ministers in July 2008, the Chairman of the Rules Group issued a report to the 

Trade Negotiating Committee. In this report, the Chairman stated his intention to circulate revised texts 

on antidumping and horizontal subsidies as soon as possible after modalities in agriculture and NAMA 

were achieved, even though Members’ positions on key issues remained far apart. The Chairman stated 

that these texts would reflect a bottom-up approach and would include draft legal language in areas of 

consensus and other areas where he believed convergence could potentially be achieved. The Chairman 

cautioned, however, that the new texts would not offer any “magic solutions” in the many areas where 

Members’ positions differ dramatically. Regarding fisheries subsidies, the Chairman stated that further 

input from Members was necessary before he could issue a revised text. The Chairman noted that, to 

facilitate the process, he would issue a specific “road map” for moving forward, at the same time as he 

intended to issue a revised text on antidumping and horizontal subsidies. This road map would identify 

key questions that need to be addressed in order to advance the negotiations towards a new fisheries text. 

Although modalities were not achieved in agriculture and NAMA, on December 18, 2008, the Chairman 
II. The World Trade Organization | 15 

issued revised texts on antidumping and horizontal subsidies and a roadmap for fisheries subsidies. In 

keeping with his earlier pronouncements, the draft texts of December 18, 2008 reflect a “bottom-up” 

approach, with the most contentious issues contained in brackets with no legal text provided. 

The Doha Declaration also directed the Rules Group to clarify and improve disciplines and procedures 

governing Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) under the existing WTO provisions. To that end, the 

General Council in December 2006 adopted a decision for the provisional application of the 

“Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements” to improve the transparency of RTAs. A 

total of 33 RTAs have been considered under the Transparency Mechanism since then. Pursuant to its 

mandate, in the past, the Rules Group has explored the establishment of further standards governing the 

relationship of RTAs to the global trading system. However, such discussions have failed to produce 

common ground on how to clarify or improve existing RTA rules. 

Major Issues in 2009 

Antidumping

In February 2009, the Chair called a plenary session of the Rules Group, in which Members provided 

their initial overall reactions to the Chair’s latest text. Nearly all Members expressed general support for 

the Chair’s bottom-up approach and indicated that the revised text provided an adequate basis for future 

discussion. The United States expressed conditional support for the revised text but reminded Members 

that additional time would be needed for the new Administration to review the revised text. The United 

States therefore reserved the right to provide additional comments and proposals at a later point. The 

United States also noted that it continues to maintain the position that any final agreement on 

antidumping must address issues where the Appellate Body has overreached, such as the critical issue of 

zeroing. 

Five additional plenary sessions on antidumping were held in 2009. The Chair established a threepillared approach to these sessions, with particular topics for discussion drawn from (1) the bracketed 

items in the text, which the Chair perceived to be the most contentious or politically sensitive issues; (2) 

the un-bracketed items in the text, which the Chair considered to be issues on which there is some degree 

of consensus; and (3) Member proposals that were not reflected in the text. The Rules Group nearly 

completed its review of the antidumping text, though the most contentious and politically sensitive issues, 

such as zeroing and sunset, remain to be discussed in 2010. For the most part, Members were 

constructively engaged in the process, though Members took few new positions. Some progress has been 

made on technical issues, but there has been no sign of significant convergence on the most contentious 

issues. 

A group calling itself the Friends of Antidumping (or FANs6

), has been very active in the antidumping 

area since the beginning of the negotiations, and has generally sought to impose limitations on the use of 

antidumping remedies. The FANs group has submitted proposals on a variety of issues, some of which 

are reflected in the Chair’s text and others that are not. Those that are not reflected in the text include: 

increasing the standing threshold from 25 percent to 50 percent of domestic production; increasing the de 

minimis dumping margin standard from two percent to five percent; increasing the negligible imports 

threshold for injury purposes by calculating import volumes as a percentage of total domestic 

consumption rather than import share; including a public interest test; including a mandatory lesser duty 

rule; and requiring authorities to “separate and distinguish” the effects of dumped imports versus other 

 

6

 The FANs group is comprised of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong China, Israel, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, and Turkey. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 16 

 

factors (such as non-dumped imports) for causation of injury purposes. The United States is strongly 

opposed to each of these proposals. 

The United States has continued working to build support among Members for proposals it had 

previously submitted, including those on issues such as injury causation, anticircumvention, new shipper 

reviews, facts available, and seasonal and perishable products, as well as a number of proposals aimed at 

improving transparency and due process in antidumping proceedings. 

Subsidies/CVD

As in the antidumping negotiations, the Chair generally followed his “three pillars” approach in 

horizontal subsidies, covering a selection of bracketed and unbracketed issues and proposals not reflected 

in the draft text in each of the meetings held in 2009. The important bracketed issues included: low-cost 

financing (i.e., state-owned banking practices), export credit rules, and a proposed redefinition of export 

competitiveness. The major unbracketed issues included: dual/regulated pricing, subsidy pass-through 

rules, and subsidy calculation methodologies. By the end of the year, the Rules Group finished its first 

review of the Chair’s draft text on horizontal subsidies, although there was little movement towards 

consensus on any of the major issues. As a general matter, the United States continued to express concern 

throughout the year that the Chair’s draft text would result in little, if any, strengthening of the current 

general subsidy disciplines, despite the Doha Rules negotiating mandate to clarify and improve the rules 

and address trade-distorting practices. 

In September 2009, the Rules Group began the process of considering whether certain provisions in the 

Antidumping Agreement and the Chair’s draft antidumping text should be “transposed” into or 

“harmonized” with the SCM Agreement. The initial phase of this exercise examined whether existing 

differences between the Antidumping and SCM Agreements are justified by inherent distinctions between 

the antidumping and countervailing duty remedies and if not, whether the differences are appropriate 

topics for possible transposition/harmonization. By the end of the year, the Rules Group finished its 

initial review of all the differences between the two existing agreements, but as a range of views was 

expressed, no definitive conclusions were reached. 

Fisheries Subsidies

Discussions in 2009 focused on the questions contained in the Chair’s “roadmap,” which were drawn 

from elements of the draft text issued by the Chair in November 2007. That text sets out a broad range of 

prohibited subsidies that contribute to fleet overcapacity and overfishing in wild marine capture fisheries, 

as well as a prohibition of subsidies that affect fishing on “unequivocally overfished” stocks. The text 

also provides for a limited list of general exceptions available to all Members and additional exceptions 

for developing countries. Subsidies under both sets of exceptions would remain actionable under the 

existing SCM Agreement. In addition, the text requires Members not to cause depletion of or harm to, or 

create overcapacity with respect to, the fisheries resources of another Member. Finally, the text contains 

provisions concerning fisheries management systems, peer review through the UN Food and Agricultural 

Organization (FAO), notification and surveillance of Members’ fisheries subsidies, dispute settlement, 

and transition arrangements. 

The roadmap discussions were completed at the December 2009 meeting. The discussions were generally 

constructive, and some progress was made on technical issues (for example, clarifying the core elements 

of a fisheries management system that must be in place as a condition for granting most subsidies). 

However, the discussions produced little movement in fundamental positions. The United States and 

other Friends of Fish (including Australia, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, New Zealand, and Peru) 
II. The World Trade Organization | 17 

coordinated on a joint statement supporting the high level of ambition in the Chair’s text, including a 

broad prohibition on subsidies. Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and the European Union continued to 

object to the scope of the Chair’s prohibition, particularly with respect to subsidies to cover operating 

costs such as fuel. 

The issue of appropriate and effective treatment for developing countries was an important focus of the 

roadmap discussions, as of the negotiations overall, and continued to prove very difficult. The Chair’s 

text provided considerable flexibility for subsistence level and small-scale developing country fishing, 

while limiting exceptions for developing countries to fishing activities within each country’s Exclusive 

Economic Zone. Brazil, with support from China, Ecuador, and Mexico, argued that developing country 

flexibilities must be extended to include fishing activities on the high seas; India pressed for greater 

flexibilities for its large poor population engaged in fishing. Given the prominence of developing 

countries in the global fishing industry, these positions among the major developing country players have 

the potential to create large carve outs that could undermine the objective of the negotiations to curb 

subsidies promoting overcapacity and overfishing. 

Regional Trade Agreements

There were no substantive discussions on regional trade agreements in the Rules Group in 2009. At the 

end of 2006, the General Council established, on a provisional basis, a new transparency mechanism for 

all RTAs (WT/L/671), which was agreed upon in the Negotiating Group on Rules and implemented in 

2007. At the time of the adoption of the transparency mechanism, the Chairman of the General Council 

had noted that Members intended to conduct an initial review of the mechanism within one year. 

However, in December 2009, the United States and other Members acknowledged that there was not yet 

enough experience, particularly with regard to RTAs falling under the Enabling Clause, for the review to 

take place. 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, the United States will continue to pursue an aggressive affirmative agenda building upon the 

U.S. proposals submitted thus far with respect to, inter alia, preserving the effectiveness of the trade 

remedy rules; improving transparency and due process in trade remedy proceedings; and strengthening 

the existing subsidies rules. With respect to the transposition/harmonization exercise, the Rules Group 

will discuss unbracketed language that currently appears in the Chair’s draft antidumping text that may 

also be relevant to countervailing duty proceedings. Concerning fisheries subsidies, the United States 

will continue to press for an ambitious outcome and work with others to further improve and refine many 

of the provisions included in the Chair’s draft 2007 text. The Chair has indicated that he will issue a 

revised text on fisheries subsidies when he deems that the time is appropriate. 

On RTAs, the transparency mechanism will continue to be applied in the consideration of additional 

RTAs. The initial substantive review of the mechanism, as foreseen by the Chair of the General Council, 

may take place subject to Members’ views on whether there is enough experience under the mechanism to 

provide a basis for identifying areas where the mechanism may be improved. The United States will 

continue to advocate increased transparency and strong substantive standards for RTAs that support and 

advance the multilateral trading system. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 18 

 

5. Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation 

Status 

An important U.S. objective was met when WTO negotiations on Trade Facilitation were launched under 

the August 1, 2004 Decision by the General Council on the Doha Work Program. The inclusion of 

negotiations on Trade Facilitation has greatly enhanced the market access aspect of the Doha Round 

negotiating agenda. Opaque border procedures and unwarranted delays faced at the borders of key export 

markets can add costs that are the equivalent of a significant tariff and are the non-tariff barriers that are 

most frequently cited by U.S. exporters. 

The agreed negotiating mandate includes the specific objective of “further expediting the movement, 

release, and clearance of goods, including goods in transit,” while also providing a path toward ambitious 

results in the form of modernized and strengthened WTO commitments governing how border 

transactions are conducted. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The work of the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation (NGTF) continued to have as its hallmark in 

2009 broad-based and constructive participation by Members of all levels of development—a positive 

negotiating environment that is seen as offering “win-win” opportunities for all. Of particular note was 

continued active leadership within the NGTF from Members representing significant emerging markets, 

including India, Brazil, the Philippines, and China which, by working closely with the United States and 

other Members, has helped to steer the negotiations forward in a practical, problem-solving manner. The 

“Colorado Group”, consisting of the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the 

EU, Hong Kong China, Japan, Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Singapore, and 

Switzerland, also continued to play a valuable role in the negotiations. 

As recent Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) undertaken by the United States have been implemented, there 

has been a positive synergy with the WTO negotiations on Trade Facilitation. With partners as diverse as 

Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, South Korea, Peru, Panama, Costa Rica, and Colombia, 

each FTA negotiated by the United States has included a separate, stand-alone chapter that contains 

significant commitments on customs administration, most of which are reflected in proposals at the 

NGTF. Each of the United States’ current and future FTA partners has become an important partner and 

champion in Geneva for moving the negotiations ahead and toward a rules-based approach to trade 

facilitation. 

For many developing country Members, results from the negotiations that bring improved transparency 

and an enhanced rules-based approach to border regimes will be an important element of broader ongoing 

domestic strategies to increase economic output and attract greater investment. There is also a growing 

understanding that such an outcome would squarely address one of the factors holding back increased 

regional integration and south-south trade. Most Members see the negotiations as bringing particular 

benefits to the ability of small and medium-sized businesses to participate in the global trading system. 

The modalities for conducting the trade facilitation negotiations, set forth as part of the August 1, 2004 

General Council decision launching the negotiations, include the following: “Negotiations shall aim to 

clarify and improve relevant aspects of Articles V, VIII, and X of the GATT 1994 with a view to further 

expediting the movement, release, and clearance of goods, including goods in transit. Negotiations shall 

also aim at enhancing technical assistance and support for capacity building in this area. The negotiations 

shall further aim at provisions for effective cooperation between customs or any other appropriate 

authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues.” 
II. The World Trade Organization | 19 

The modalities also include references that underscore the importance of addressing implementation 

issues such as costs, potential implications with regard to infrastructure, capacity building, the status of 

LDC Members, and the work of other international organizations. 

The work of the NGTF during 2009 was characterized by intensive, Member-driven, text-based 

negotiations. The group met in February, April and June to review individual Member proposals, then 

switched its focus in October and November to assembly of a draft consolidated negotiating text. Work 

proceeded quickly, and a complete draft text was issued in December. Significantly, the text was not a 

“Chair’s text”, based on the Chair’s perception of Members’ desired outcomes. Rather, the text includes 

all proposals on the table and modifications to those proposals that Members have suggested. Consistent 

with the Member-driven, bottom-up approach that has characterized the NGTF from the outset, future 

work will require continued engagement of Members with each other to resolve differences. 

The proposals reflected in the draft negotiating text cover each of the areas provided for in the NGTF 

modalities. There are a number of proposals to promote transparent rules and procedures, including 

publication requirements such as a U.S. proposal on internet publication, proposals to promote appeal 

procedures and enquiry points, and a U.S. proposal on advance administrative rulings. There are also 

several proposals to expedite release and clearance of goods, including through pre-arrival processing, 

separation of release and clearance, and expedited shipment procedures (the latter a U.S. proposal), and to 

simplify and eliminate fees and formalities, such as through the Ugandan-U.S. proposal to eliminate 

consularization requirements. Likewise the draft consolidated negotiating text includes proposals on 

transit procedures and customs cooperation. 

During 2009, the NGTF also continued its work on addressing the challenge of implementing the results 

of the negotiations that will face many developing country Members. The draft consolidated negotiating 

text includes new textual proposals from the United States and other Members on transition provisions for 

developing and least-developed country Members, intended to provide these Members with the flexibility 

necessary for them to fully implement the negotiating outcome, as well as the assurance that they will 

have the time and assistance to do so. In this connection, as part of the substantial assistance already 

being provided in this area, the WTO and assistance organizations, including the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, continued training programs with developing country Members to help them 

undertake assessments of their individual situations regarding capacity and make progress in 

implementing the proposals submitted. The Member assessments have made it apparent that many of the 

developing country Members have implemented—or are taking steps to do so—a number of the concrete 

measures proposed as new WTO commitments. At the same time, it is also clear that a number of 

developing country Members openly recognize that they have an “offensive” interest in seeking 

implementation by their neighbors of any future new commitments in this area. This realization has led to 

broad developed and developing country Member alliances on some of the proposals, such as the U.S. 

joint proposal with Uganda calling for elimination of consularization formalities and fees. 

The proposals by Members for specific new and strengthened WTO commitments submitted thus far to 

the NGTF generally reflect measures that would capture forward-looking practices that would bring 

improved efficiency, transparency, and certainty to border regimes, while diminishing opportunities for 

corruption. 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, the NGTF will begin reviewing and refining the draft consolidated negotiating text in a 

continuation of the Member-driven, bottom-up process aimed at achieving a timely conclusion of the 

negotiations. As negotiations toward new and strengthened disciplines move forward, it will remain 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 20 

 

important that work proceeds in a methodical and practical manner on the issue of how all Members can 

meet the challenge of implementing the results of the negotiations—including with regard to the issues of 

special and differential treatment and technical assistance. 

6. Committee on Trade and Environment, Special Session 

Status 

Following the 2001 WTO Ministerial Conference at Doha, the TNC established a Special Session of the 

Committee on Trade and Environment (CTESS) to implement the mandate in paragraph 31 of the Doha 

Declaration. Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration includes a mandate to pursue negotiations, without 

prejudging their outcome, in three areas: 

i. the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations (STOs) set out in 

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) (with the negotiations limited to the 

applicability of existing WTO rules among parties to such MEAs and without prejudice to the 

WTO rights of Members that are not parties to the MEAs in question); 

ii. procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO 

committees, and the criteria for granting observer status; and 

iii. the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in 

environmental goods and services. 

Major Issues in 2009 

In 2009, the CTESS met informally, and the Chair, Ambassador Manuel Teehankee (Philippines) held 

several small group consultations, most of which focused on DDA sub-paragraph 31(iii) of the 

negotiating mandate. In addition, the WTO Secretariat sponsored a workshop in September on 

environmental goods and services, with presentations from public and private sector speakers from the 

renewable energy, wastewater management and air pollution control sectors. The workshop also covered 

cross-cutting areas of interest, such as technology transfer and non-tariff barriers. Presentations from the 

workshop are available on the WTO website at 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/wksp_goods_sept09_e/wksp_goods_sept09_e.htm. 

In October, Senior Officials endorsed the CTESS Chair’s work program for the Committee, as originally 

outlined in the Chair’s report to the TNC in July 2008 (TN/TE/18). The work program provides for a 

detailed work plan under sub-paragraph 31(iii), which is underway, and which is aimed at identifying a 

“universe of environmental goods” of interest, as well as cross-cutting issues, by February 2010. The 

Chair’s work program also calls for text-based negotiations to begin under sub-paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii) 

in February 2010 based on Members’ proposals. 

While Members have voiced strong support for the Chair’s work program, there have been relatively few 

new proposals, particularly in terms of identifying environmental goods of interest. The United States has 

led the way in terms of identifying goods of interest and environmental relevance and looks forward to 

having more detailed discussions on these and other identified goods. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 21 

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) 

Regarding sub-paragraph 31(i) on the relationship between MEAs and WTO rules, a large majority of 

Members, including the United States, Australia, and Argentina, have underscored the value of 

experience-sharing to enhance the mutually supportive relationship of trade and environment, as well as 

the importance of national coordination between trade and environment experts, and believe that these 

elements should form an integral part of any outcome under sub-paragraph 31(i). These same Members 

have opposed outcomes that would go beyond the sub-paragraph 31(i) and paragraph 32 mandates by 

altering Members’ WTO rights and obligations (e.g., a proposal from the EU would reduce the 

independence of WTO panels when deciding disputes involving environmental matters). 

Regarding sub-paragraph 31(ii), discussions have progressed significantly; however, there remain a few 

outstanding issues that will require further consultations (e.g., a proposal from the EU for automatic 

observer status to be granted to a number of MEA Secretariats that have participated in the CTESS’ 

work). 

Environmental Goods 

Regarding sub-paragraph 31(iii), there continues to be, at this stage, a divergence of views among 

Members as to which goods would ultimately fall within the mandate. Moreover, there is still no 

agreement among delegations at this stage on the particular modalities for cutting tariffs. The Chair’s 

work program is without prejudice to the proposals currently on the table. 

Members made several new submissions during 2009: an expansive list of environmental goods in the 

clean energy category by Saudi Arabia; a nonpaper by Brazil outlining a process for a request-offer 

negotiation; a proposal by Argentina (TN/TE/W/74) calling for tariffs to be reduced or eliminated on 

goods used in projects under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); and a paper 

from Japan (TN/TE/W/75) on energy efficient goods. 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, the CTESS is expected to continue to move toward fulfillment of all aspects of the mandate 

under Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration, according to the Chairman’s work program agreed among 

Senior Officials, and taking into account the progress made in related negotiating groups. 

Under sub-paragraph 31(i), Members are expected to rely on previous discussions of their real world 

experiences in the negotiation and implementation of STOs set out in MEAs to draw conclusions for any 

text-based negotiations. The United States continues to view this experience-based exchange as the best 

way to explore the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade obligations contained in MEAs and 

maintains that these national experiences should form the basis for an outcome in the negotiations. 

Discussions under sub-paragraph 31(ii) are likely to move to text in conjunction with sub-paragraph 31(i). 

Several Members have also noted their interest in exploring linkages between sub-paragraphs 31(i) and 

(ii), in light of the view that enhanced cooperation between the WTO and MEA secretariats could 

contribute to improving both international and national coordination, and could further contribute to a 

mutually supportive relationship between trade and environment regimes. 

Finally, the CTESS is expected to continue to identify environmental goods of interest and related crosscutting issues. The United States will continue to show leadership in advancing a robust outcome in the 

negotiations, including further development of an environmental goods and services agreement (EGSA), 

which we proposed in November 2007 in an effort to open markets for environmental goods and advance 

Members’ environmental and development policies. In addition, as highlighted by Ambassador Ron Kirk 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 22 

 

and several other trade ministers at the WTO Ministerial Meeting in December, we will work with other 

like-minded and ambitious Members to explore approaches to fast-track the elimination of tariffs on 

goods directly relevant to addressing climate change, such as solar panels and stoves, and wind and 

hydraulic turbines. We believe that such action could make an important contribution to both the DDA 

and the global climate negotiations, which will continue in 2010. 

7. Dispute Settlement Body, Special Session 

Status

Following the Doha Ministerial Conference in 2001, the Trade Negotiations Committee established the 

Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to fulfill the Ministerial mandate found in 

paragraph 30 of the Doha Declaration which provides: “We agree to negotiations on improvements and 

clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. The negotiations should be based on the work 

done thus far as well as any additional proposals by Members, and aim to agree on improvements and 

clarifications not later than May 2003, at which time we will take steps to ensure that the results enter into 

force as soon as possible thereafter.” In July 2003, the General Council decided that: (1) the timeframe 

for conclusion of the negotiations on clarifications and improvements of the Understanding on Rules and 

Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) be extended by one year (i.e., to aim to conclude 

the work by May 2004 at the latest); (2) this continued work will build on the work done to date, and take 

into account proposals put forward by Members as well as the text put forward by the Chair of the Special 

Session of the DSB (DSB-SS); and (3) the first meeting of the DSB-SS when it resumed its work be 

devoted to a discussion of conceptual ideas. Due to complexities in negotiations, deadlines were not met. 

In August 2004, the General Council decided that Members should continue work toward clarification 

and improvement of the DSU, without establishing a deadline. 

Major Issues in 2009

The DSB-SS met five times during 2009 in an effort to implement the Doha mandate. In previous phases 

of the review of the DSU, Members had engaged in a general discussion of the issues. Following that 

general discussion, Members tabled proposals to clarify or improve the DSU. Members then reviewed 

each proposal submitted and requested explanations and posed questions to the Member(s) making the 

proposal. Members also had an opportunity to discuss each issue raised by the various proposals. The 

Chair of the review issued a chair’s text in July 2008 “to take stock of” the work to date and to provide a 

basis for its continuation. In 2009, Members continued their discussions in light of the chair’s text. 

The United States has advocated two proposals, both of which are reflected in the chair’s text. One would 

expand transparency and public access to dispute settlement proceedings. The proposal would open 

WTO dispute settlement proceedings to the public as the norm and give greater public access to 

submissions and panel reports. In addition to open hearings, public submissions and early public release 

of panel reports, the U.S. proposal calls on WTO Members to consider rules for “amicus curiae” 

submissions—submissions by non-parties to a dispute. WTO rules currently allow such submissions, but 

do not provide guidelines on how they are to be considered. Guidelines would provide a clearer roadmap 

for handling such submissions. 

In addition, the United States and Chile submitted a proposal to help improve the effectiveness of the 

WTO dispute settlement system in resolving trade disputes among Members. The joint proposal 

contained specifications aimed at giving parties to a dispute more control over the process and greater 

flexibility to settle disputes. Under the present dispute settlement system, parties are encouraged to 

resolve their disputes, but do not always have all the tools with which to do so. As part of this proposal, 
II. The World Trade Organization | 23 

the United States has also proposed guidance for WTO Members to provide to WTO adjudicative bodies 

in three particular areas where important questions have arisen in the course of various disputes. 

Prospects for 2010

In 2010, Members will continue to work to complete the review of the DSU. Members will be meeting a 

number of times over the course of 2010. 

8. Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Special 

Session Status 

With a view to completing the work started in the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights (TRIPS Council) on the implementation of Article 23.4 of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), Ministers agreed at the 2001 Doha 

Ministerial Conference to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and 

registration of geographical indications (GIs) for wines and spirits. At the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial 

Conference, Ministers agreed to intensify their work in order to complete these negotiations within the 

overall time-frame for the conclusion of the Doha negotiations. This matter is the only one before the 

Special Session of the TRIPS Council. 

Major Issues in 2009

The TRIPS Council Special Session held three formal meetings in 2009, as well as several informal 

consultations. During that time, there was no significant shift in WTO Members’ positions, nor any 

movement towards bridging sharp differences between competing proposals. Key positions are reflected 

in a 2005 WTO Secretariat document (TN/IP/W/12), which contains a side-by-side presentation of the 

three proposals before the Special Session. The Secretariat expanded this document in May 2007, with an 

addendum that describes the various arguments, and that presents questions raised by proponents of the 

proposals (TN/IP/W/12/Add. 1). In a July 2008 report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/IP/18), 

the Chair of the TRIPS Council Special Session highlighted, in particular, ongoing divergences with 

respect to participation in the multilateral register system (i.e., whether the system would apply to all 

Members or only to those opting to participate in it) and to the nature of the legal obligations provided for 

in the system (i.e., the extent to which legal effects at the domestic level determine the effect of 

registration of a GI for a wine or spirit in the system). In 2009, the Chairman of the TRIPS Council 

Special Session delivered a report on the status of the negotiations and proposed ideas for future work. 

The United States, together with Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican 

Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 

Paraguay, and Chinese Taipei continued to support the Joint Proposal under which Members would notify 

their GIs for wines and spirits for incorporation into a register on the WTO website. During 2008, the 

Republic of Korea and the Republic of South Africa formally associated themselves as co-sponsors of the 

Joint Proposal. Several Joint Proposal co-sponsors have submitted a Draft TRIPS Council Decision on 

the Establishment of a Multilateral System of Notification and Registration of Geographical Indications 

for Wines and Spirits to the Special Session to set out clearly in draft legal form, a means by which 

Members could implement the mandate from paragraph 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and 

Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement. Members choosing to use the system would agree to consult the 

system when making any decisions under their domestic laws related to GIs or, in some cases, 

trademarks. Implementation of this proposal would not impose any additional obligations—with regard 

to GIs—on Members that chose not to participate, nor would it place undue burdens on the WTO 

Secretariat. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 24 

 

The EU, together with a number of other Members, continued to support their alternative proposal for a 

binding, multilateral system for the notification and registration of GIs for wines and spirits. The current 

EU position on geographical indications combines two proposals: the multilateral GI register for wines 

and spirits, and an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to extend Article 23-level GI protection to 

products other than wines and spirits. The effect of this proposal would be to expand the scope of the 

negotiations to all GI products and to propose that any GI notified to the EU’s proposed register would 

benefit from a presumption of protection as a GI in other WTO Member countries. In addition, the 

notified GI would be presumed valid against a competing rightholder, including a prior rightholder. 

Essentially, the system proposed by the EU could, as a practical matter, enable one Member to mandate 

GI protection in another Member simply by notifying that GI to the system. Such a proposal would 

negatively affect pre-existing trademark rights, as well as investments in generic food terms, and would 

directly contradict the principle of territoriality with respect to intellectual property in favor of a system 

based upon the unilateral and extraterritorial application of domestic law and national intellectual 

property regimes. While the EU has informally indicated possible modifications to its proposals, it has 

not presented these formally in the negotiations. 

A third proposal, from Hong Kong China, remains on the table, although during 2009, this proposal was 

not discussed as extensively as the others. 

Prospects for 2010

The United States will aggressively pursue additional support for the Joint Proposal in the coming year, 

and will seek a more flexible and pragmatic approach on the part of the EU, so that the negotiations can 

be completed. 

9. Committee on Trade and Development, Special Session 

Status 

The Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD-SS) was established by the TNC 

in February 2002, to fulfill the Doha Round mandate to review all special and differential treatment 

(S&D) provisions “with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective, and 

operational.” Under existing S&D provisions, Members provide developing country Members with 

technical assistance and transitional arrangements toward implementation of the WTO Agreement. S&D 

provisions also enable Members to provide developing country Members with better-than-MFN access to 

markets. 

As part of the S&D review, developing country Members have submitted 88 proposals to augment 

existing S&D provisions in the WTO agreement. Following intensive negotiations in 2002 and 2003, the 

CTD-SS agreed ad referendum on nearly a third of those proposals for consideration at the Fifth 

Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico in 2003. Due to the breakdown of the DDA negotiations, 

these proposals were not adopted at Cancun. Since Cancun, WTO Members have taken no action to 

adopt them, and in November 2005, the Africa Group submitted a paper to the CTD-SS repudiating the 

agreed texts of these proposals. In 2004 and early 2005, the focus of the CTD-SS shifted to discussions 

on new approaches to address the mandate more effectively, and reflected a desire to find a more 

productive approach than that associated with the specific proposals that individual Members or groups 

tabled. Despite extensive discussions, Members were unable to reach agreement on an alternative 

framework for approaching the mandate of the CTD-SS. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 25 

Leading up to the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial, Members focused in the CTD-SS on five S&D proposals 

put forth by the LDC Members. These included proposals on: access to WTO waivers; coherence; dutyfree and quota-free treatment (DFQF) for LDC Members; Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMS); 

and flexibility for LDC Members that have difficulty implementing their WTO obligations. At the Hong 

Kong Ministerial Conference, Members reached agreement in these five areas. The decisions on these 

proposals are contained in Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 

Following the Hong Kong Ministerial, the CTD-SS conducted a thorough “accounting” of the remaining 

agreement-specific proposals. Though the number of proposals had been reduced considerably since their 

introduction in 2002 and 2003, divergences among Members’ positions on the remaining proposals were 

quite wide. The Chair of the CTD-SS continues to work closely with the Chairs of the other negotiating 

groups and Committees to which the proposals had been referred due to their technical complexity. The 

Chairs report that there has been very little development on these proposals. However, some of the 

Chairs of the negotiating bodies indicate that a number of the issues raised in the proposals form an 

integral part of the ongoing negotiations. In addition, there are a number of bodies in which discussions 

on the proposals are continuing on the basis of revised language tabled by the proponents. 

With respect to the remaining proposals still under consideration in the CTD-SS, Members have 

continued to focus their text-based discussions on six of the 16 remaining Agreement-specific proposals. 

These proposals cover issues relating to Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures (SPS Agreement), Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 3.5 of the Agreement on 

Import Licensing. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The Special Session held four formal meetings in March, July, October, and December 2009 and a large 

number of informal plurilateral consultations. As Members were still in disagreement with respect to 

language in the Agreement-specific proposals, work in the Special Session focused primarily on the 

Monitoring Mechanism in 2009. 

The Hong Kong Declaration directs the CTD-SS to “resume work on all other outstanding issues, 

including the cross-cutting issues, the Monitoring Mechanism and the architecture of WTO rules.” The 

possible elements of a Monitoring Mechanism continued to be discussed during formal and informal 

meetings, where Members continued to emphasize the need for the mechanism to be simple, practical, 

and forward looking. There continues to be disagreement as to whether other negotiating groups and 

Committees with technical expertise should be involved in the monitoring of Agreement-specific S&D 

provisions and whether the scope of the mechanism should be broadened beyond monitoring S&D 

implementation. 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, work will continue on the remaining S&D proposals and on the underlying issues inherent in 

them. As in 2009, much of the practical work on S&D in 2010 is likely to take place in the other 

Negotiating Groups, for example the Negotiating Groups on Agriculture, Non-Agricultural Market 

Access, Services, and Trade Facilitation. However, it is also likely that discussions will continue in the 

CTD-SS toward a mechanism to monitor implementation of S&D provisions and other cross-cutting 

issues. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 26 

 

D. Work Programs Established in the Doha Development Agenda 

1. Working Group on Trade, Debt, and Finance 

Status 

Ministers at the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference established the mandate for the Working Group on 

Trade, Debt, and Finance (WGTDF). Ministers instructed the WGTDF to examine the relationship 

between trade, debt, and finance, and to examine and make recommendations on possible steps, within 

the mandate and competence of the WTO, to enhance the capacity of the multilateral trading system to 

contribute to a durable solution to the problem of external indebtedness of developing and least-developed 

country Members. Ministers further instructed the WGTDF to consider possible steps to strengthen the 

coherence of international trade and financial policies, with a view to safeguarding the multilateral trading 

system from the effects of financial and monetary instability. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The WGTDF held two formal meetings in 2009. The first meeting was held on March 31, 2009. During 

this meeting, Members raised issues for discussion relating to a WTO Secretariat report that was based on 

an earlier Secretariat report on the WTO-hosted Expert Group on Trade Finance that met on March 18th, 

2009 and other information gathered at the preparatory meeting of G-20 experts on trade finance, held in 

Washington, DC, on March 25, 2009. The Members also discussed general issues related to the current 

market conditions and trade finance. 

The second meeting was held on September 22, 2009. During this meeting, Members discussed issues 

relating to trade finance, and the WTO Secretariat debriefed the Working Group on the outcome of the 

meeting of the Expert Group on Trade Finance convened by the WTO on September 15, 2009. 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, the WGTDF will continue to be a forum for discussing trade finance issues. In addition, the 

WGTDF will examine the relationship between trade, debt, and finance, and may make recommendations 

on possible steps that might be taken within its mandate and the competence of the WTO to enhance the 

capacity of the multilateral trading system to contribute to a durable solution to the problem of external 

indebtedness of developing and LDC Members. 

2. Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology 

Status 

During the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference, WTO Ministers agreed to an “examination... of the 

relationship between trade and transfer of technology, and of any possible recommendations on steps that 

might be taken within the mandate of the WTO to increase flows of technology to developing countries.” 

To fulfill that mandate, the TNC established the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology 

(WGTTT), under the auspices of the General Council, and tasked the WGTTT to report on its progress to 

the 2003 Ministerial Conference at Cancun. At that meeting, Ministers extended the time period for the 

WGTTT’s examination. During the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, WTO Ministers 

recognized “the relevance of the relationship between trade and transfer of technology” and further agreed 

that, “building on the work carried out to date, this work shall continue on the basis of the mandate 
II. The World Trade Organization | 27 

contained in paragraph 37 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.” The WGTTT met four times in 2009, 

continuing its work under the Doha Ministerial mandate to examine the relationship between trade and 

the transfer of technology. Members have not reached consensus on any recommendations. 

Major Issues in 2009 

In the period since the Doha Ministerial, the WGTTT has considered submissions from the Secretariat, 

WTO Members, other WTO bodies, and other inter-governmental organizations. 

In 2003, a group of developing country Members, led by India and Pakistan, circulated a paper entitled 

“Possible Recommendations on Steps that Might be Taken within the Mandate of the WTO to Increase 

Flows of Technology to Developing Countries.” The United States and several other Members have 

objected to much of the analysis in this paper, which suggested that some WTO agreements were 

hindering the transfer of technology. In particular, the United States and other Members expressed the 

strong view that effective intellectual property rights protections promote the transfer of technology by 

private firms; that market-based trade and investment are the most efficient means of promoting 

technology transfer; and that governments should generally not mandate the transfer of technology. The 

United States has also argued that the contribution of commerce to technology transfer reinforces the case 

for continued trade and investment liberalization. 

In 2008, India, Pakistan and the Philippines revised an earlier set of proposals, and these proposals 

continued to be the focus of discussion in 2009. One proposal under discussion is to improve the WTO 

website to allow Members to search more easily for submissions relating to technology transfer, and to 

establish a forum for governments and the private sector to exchange information about technological 

needs and offers. The United States has welcomed this constructive approach to the work of the WGTTT, 

and has requested more information on the changes proposed for the WTO web site. 

During 2009, the working group also continued its discussion of presentations by Members and outside 

bodies on their experience and research regarding technology transfer. The working group continued the 

discussion begun last year of the World Bank’s 2008 Global Economic Prospects Report as it related to 

technology transfer. The working group also considered a presentation by the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of a report on “The Linkage between Technology Transfer and Productivity Gains in 

Agriculture.” This report focused on the improved productivity brought about through new technologies 

and methods in agriculture. In response, the U.S. noted the importance of this subject and the need for 

tools beyond technology transfer mechanisms to manage growing demand, such as post-harvest 

techniques, private sector growth, support for small and woman-owned farming, increasing trade flows, 

and good governance. 

Prospects for 2010

No WGTTT meetings have been scheduled yet for 2010. It is expected that, in response to a request from 

the Chairman of the Group, developing country Members will make presentations on their national 

experience with technology transfer, and that the group will continue its examination of issues raised in 

the 2008 India/Pakistan/Philippines paper. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 28 

 

3. Work Program on Electronic Commerce 

Status

Pursuant to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, Members continue to explore ways to advance the 

Work Program on Electronic Commerce. To that end, Members decided during the 2009 Ministerial to 

reinvigorate the Work Program addressing development-related issues and the trade treatment, inter alia, 

of electronically delivered software. In addition, Members extended the moratorium on imposing 

customs duties on electronic transmission, first agreed to in 1998, until the next Ministerial Conference, 

scheduled for 2011. 

Since 2001, the Work Program on Electronic Commerce has held several dedicated discussions under the 

auspices of the General Council. These informal discussions examined cross-cutting issues that the 

various sub-bodies of the General Council identified as affecting two or more of the various WTO legal 

instruments. The most controversial cross-cutting issue has been whether to classify electronicallydelivered products (e.g., software, music and video) as a good or a service. Resolution of that issue has 

not been reached, but Members may examine it more thoroughly in the coming year. 

Major Issues in 2009

The Work Program on Electronic Commerce remains an item in the Doha mandate. The Seventh 

Dedicated Discussion under the auspices of the General Council relating to the Work Program on 

Electronic Commerce took place in October and November 2009. The recommendations developed 

during the Seventh Dedicated Discussion were adopted by the Ministerial Conference on December 2, 

2009. There has been no activity in any of the other WTO bodies charged with carrying out work under 

the Work Program. 

Prospects for 2010

At the 2009 Ministerial Conference, Members decided that a reinvigorated Work Program should include 

development-related issues, basic WTO principles including among others non-discrimination, 

predictability and transparency, and discussions on the trade treatment, inter alia, of electronically 

delivered software. The United States will support these efforts, examining ways to make the moratorium 

permanent and binding, and ensuring that trade rules relevant to electronic commerce help maintain a 

liberal trade environment for electronically traded goods and services, including for electronicallydelivered products. At the Ministerial Conference, Members agreed to have periodic reviews based on 

written reports of this Work Program in the General Council meetings of July 2010, December 2010 and 

July 2011. 

E. General Council Activities 

Status 

The WTO General Council is the highest level decision-making body in the WTO that meets on a regular 

basis during the year. It exercises all of the authority of the Ministerial Conference, which is required to 

meet no less than once every two years. 

Only the Ministerial Conference and the General Council have the authority to adopt authoritative 

interpretations of the WTO Agreements, submit amendments to the Agreements for consideration by 

Members, and grant waivers of obligations. The General Council or the Ministerial Conference must 
II. The World Trade Organization | 29 

approve the terms for all accessions to the WTO. Technically, both the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) 

and the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) are General Council meetings that are convened for the 

purpose of discharging the responsibilities of the DSB and TPRB, respectively. 

Four major bodies report directly to the General Council: the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for 

Trade in Services, the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and the Trade 

Negotiations Committee (TNC). In addition, the Committee on Trade and Environment, the Committee 

on Trade and Development, the Committee on Balance of Payments Restrictions, the Committee on 

Budget, Finance and Administration, and the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements report directly to 

the General Council. The Working Groups established at the First Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 

1996 to examine investment, trade and competition policy, and transparency in government procurement 

also report directly to the General Council, although these groups have been inactive since the Cancun 

Ministerial Conference in 2003. A number of subsidiary bodies report to the General Council through the 

Council for Trade in Goods or the Council for Trade in Services. The Doha Ministerial Declaration 

approved a number of new work programs and working groups which have been given mandates to report 

to the General Council, such as the Working Group on Trade, Debt, and Finance and the Working Group 

on Trade and Transfer of Technology. These mandates are part of DDA, and this report reviews these 

groups’ work in sub-sections of Section D entitled Working Group on Trade, Debt, and Finance and 

Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology. 

The General Council uses both formal and informal processes to conduct the business of the WTO. 

Informal groupings, which generally include the United States, play an important role in consensusbuilding. Throughout 2009, the Chairman of the General Council, together with the Director General, 

conducted extensive informal consultations with both the Heads of Delegation of the entire WTO 

Membership and a wide variety of smaller groupings. These consultations were convened with a view 

towards making progress on the core issues in the DDA, as well as towards resolving outstanding issues 

on the General Council’s agenda. In 2009, the main focus of work in the DDA negotiations was in the 

individual negotiating groups. Reports on those groups are set out in other sections of this chapter. 

Major Issues in 2009 

Ambassador Mario Matus served as Chairman of the General Council in 2009. In addition to work on the 

DDA, activities of the General Council in 2009 included: 

Accessions and Observerships: New chairmen were appointed to the Working Parties established to 

examine the accession requests of Afghanistan, Iraq, Lao PDR, Samoa, Bahamas, and Seychelles. There 

were no new requests submitted to the General Council in 2009 to initiate accession negotiations. Gabon, 

on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries, submitted a proposal to start a process of 

considering improvements to the existing institutional mechanism of accession and that progress reports 

be sent to the General Council. No formal action was taken by the General Council on this proposal. 

The Palestinian Authority, an observer at both the Sixth (Hong Kong) and Seventh (Geneva) WTO 

Ministerial Conferences, submitted an application for permanent observer status in the General Council. 

The Council has not yet acted upon that request. There were no other requests for observer status during 

2009. 

China Transitional Review Mechanism (TRM): In December, the General Council concluded its eighth 

annual review of China’s implementation of its commitments. The United States and some other 

Members commented on China’s progress as a WTO Member, while noting that China’s transition to a 

market economy continues to fall short in a number of areas. The United States raised concerns about 

China’s use of export restraints on raw materials, VAT rebates, export subsidies, and use of national 

versus international standards; bans on telecommunications services; restrictions in the postal express 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 30 

 

market; the implementation of “Buy China” policies; and the lack of enforcement of intellectual property 

rights. The United States also expressed concerns about China’s unpredictable agricultural policies, 

particularly with respect to arbitrary customs procedures and quarantine rules. The United States urged 

China to make further progress toward the institutionalization of market mechanisms, fairness, 

transparency, and predictability in its trade regime. 

Other Members also expressed concerns about China’s policy of imposing export taxes on raw material 

minerals exports and noted that China’s participation in the TRM process had been lacking in that China 

failed to provide written responses to questions in advance of committee meetings and failed to provide 

any response to many questions. As a result, some Members concluded that the TRM process had fallen 

short of its full potential. 

Bananas: The EU and Latin American banana supplying countries initialed the Geneva Agreement on 

Trade in Bananas (GATB) on December 15, 2009, which is designed to lead to settlement of the 

longstanding bananas dispute. Under the agreement, the EU will reduce tariffs on banana imports in eight 

stages until reaching 114 Euros per ton by 2017, thereby bringing itself into compliance with its WTO 

obligations. Separately, the United States and the EU initialed an agreement also designed to lead to 

settlement of their banana dispute. In that agreement, the EU undertakes not to reintroduce measures that 

discriminate among bananas distributors based on ownership or control of the distributor or the source of 

bananas, and to maintain a non-discriminatory tariff-only regime for the importation of bananas. Once 

the various parties conclude their domestic ratification procedures, the agreements will be signed and then 

enter into force. Upon entry into force, the EU will need to request formal WTO certification of its new 

banana tariffs. The GATB provides that once the certification process is concluded, the EU and the Latin 

American countries will settle their disputes and claims. Once that has occurred, the United States will 

also settle its dispute with the EU. 

Waivers of Obligations: The General Council approved the following waivers: (1) the extension of a 

waiver from the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I of GATT 1994, to allow developing country 

Members to provide preferential tariff treatment to products of least developed countries until June 30, 

2019; (2) a request by the United States for a waiver from the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I and 

paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XIII of GATT 1994, until September 30, 2015, for the African Growth and 

Opportunity Act; (3) requests by the United States for the renewal of waivers from the provisions of 

paragraph 1 of Article I and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article XIII of the GATT 1994, until December 31, 

2014, for the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; and (4) a 

request by Cape Verde for a waiver on the implementation of scheduled concessions and commitments 

until January 1, 2010. The General Council also adopted waivers for the Harmonized System 1996 

changes to WTO schedules of tariff concessions for Argentina and Panama and waivers for the 

procedures leading to the verification and certification of Harmonized System 1996 changes to WTO 

schedules of tariff concessions for 64 other WTO Members. Annex II of this report contains a detailed 

list of Article IX waivers currently in force. 

Review of the Exemption Provided Under Paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 (Jones Act): The General Council 

completed its sixth biennial review of the U.S. exemption under Paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 for the Jones 

Act. This exemption is reviewed every two years to determine whether the conditions creating the need 

for the exemption still prevail. The United States noted that it had provided its statistical reports and held 

informal consultations with interested Members. The next review will occur in 2011. 

Global Financial Crisis: The General Council, through the TPRB, established mechanisms to monitor 

measures adopted by Members in response to the global economic and financial crisis and to report on 

such measures to the Members. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 31 

Prospects for 2010 

The General Council is expected to be more active in 2010 as Members endeavor to bring the DDA 

negotiation to its concluding phase. In addition to its management of the WTO and oversight of 

implementation of the WTO Agreements, the General Council will continue to closely monitor work on 

all aspects of the DDA negotiations. 

F. Council for Trade in Goods 

Status

The WTO Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) oversees the activities of 12 committees (Agriculture, 

Antidumping Practices, Customs Valuation, Import Licensing Procedures, Information Technology, 

Market Access, Rules of Origin, Safeguards, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures, Technical Barriers to Trade, and Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMS)) 

and the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises. 

The CTG is the forum for discussing issues and decisions which may ultimately require the attention of 

the General Council for resolution or a higher-level discussion, and for putting issues in a broader context 

of the rules and disciplines that apply to trade in goods. The use of the GATT 1994 Article IX waiver 

provisions, for example, is considered in the CTG and the CTG gave initial approval to waivers for trade 

preferences granted to ACP countries and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) countries by the EU and 

the United States, respectively. 

Major Issues in 2009

In 2009, the CTG held five formal meetings, in March, May, June, and two in October. As the central 

oversight body in the WTO for all agreements related to trade in goods, the CTG devoted its attention 

primarily to providing formal approval of decisions and recommendations proposed by its subsidiary 

bodies. The CTG also served as a forum for airing initial complaints regarding actions that individual 

Members had taken with respect to the operation of goods-related WTO Agreements. Many of these 

complaints were resolved through consultation. In addition, three major issues were debated extensively 

in the CTG in 2009: 

Waivers: The CTG approved several requests for waivers, including those related to the United States’ 

request concerning the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), Caribbean Basin Economic 

Recovery Act (CBERA) and Andean Trade Promotion Act (ATPA), the request by Brazil, China, India 

and Korea for an extension of the waiver for preferential tariff treatment for least developed countries, 

Cape Verde’s request for a waiver concerning the implementation of duty rate reductions, and the 

implementation of the Harmonized Tariff System and renegotiation of tariff schedules. 

China Transitional Review: On October 30, the CTG conducted the eighth annual Transitional Review 

Mechanism (TRM) review of China, as mandated by the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s 

Republic of China to the WTO. China supplied the CTG with information and answered questions that 

Members posed, and the CTG reviewed the TRM reports of CTG subsidiary bodies. (For a more detailed 

discussion of China’s implementation of WTO commitments, see Chapter III.B.4.)

Textiles: The CTG met several times to review a proposal by small exporting Members, including 

Turkey, to find ways to assist them with post-Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) adjustment 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 32 

 

problems. These Members argued that the elimination of quotas resulted in a disastrous loss of market 

share from small suppliers to the large exporters such as China and India. They asked that the CTG study 

this adjustment issue with a view to adopting proposals to ease the transition. These proposals were 

blocked by the large exporting Members, such as China and India. They argued that 40 years of textile 

restraints were long enough and it was necessary for this sector to return to normal trade rules. China and 

India contended that any attempt to ease the transition to a quota-free environment would perpetuate the 

distortions which had characterized this sector for so long. 

Prospects for 2010

The CTG will continue to be the focal point for discussing agreements in the WTO dealing with trade in 

goods. Post-ATC adjustment and the outstanding waiver requests will be prominent issues on the 

agenda. 

1. Committee on Agriculture 

Status 

The WTO Committee on Agriculture (the Committee) oversees the implementation of the Agreement on 

Agriculture (the Agriculture Agreement) and provides a forum for Members to consult on matters related 

to provisions of the Agreement. In many cases, the Committee resolves problems on implementation, 

permitting Members to avoid invoking lengthy dispute settlement procedures. The Committee also has 

responsibility for monitoring the possible negative effects of agricultural reform on least developed 

countries (LDCs) and net food-importing developing country (NFIDC) Members. 

Since its inception, the Committee has proven to be a vital instrument for the United States to monitor and 

enforce agricultural trade commitments that were undertaken by other Members in the Uruguay Round. 

Members agreed to provide annual notifications of progress in meeting their commitments in agriculture, 

and the Committee has met frequently to review the notifications and monitor activities of Members to 

ensure that trading partners honor their commitments. 

Under the watchful eye of the Committee, Members have, for the most part, complied with the 

agricultural commitments that they undertook as WTO Members. However, there have been important 

exceptions where other Members’ agricultural policies have adversely affected U.S. agricultural trade 

interests. In these situations, the Committee has frequently served as an indispensable tool for resolving 

conflicts before they became formal WTO disputes. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The Committee held four formal meetings in March, July, September, and November 2009 to review 

progress on the implementation of commitments negotiated in the Uruguay Round. At the meetings, 

Members undertook reviews based on notifications by Members in the areas of market access, domestic 

support, export subsidies, export prohibitions and restrictions, and general matters relevant to the 

implementation of commitments. 

In total, 213 notifications were subject to review during 2009. The United States participated actively in 

the review process and raised specific issues concerning the operation of Members’ agricultural policies. 

For example, the United States used the review process to raise concerns about Taiwan’s administration 

of its tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system and tendering schedule for rice. The United States also raised 

concerns regarding the transparency and predictability of Thailand’s TRQ allocation system for soybeans, 
II. The World Trade Organization | 33 

potatoes, corn, and other agricultural products. In addition, the United States used the review process to 

state its support for Argentina’s requests to the European Union proposing multilateral negotiations to 

establish the bound Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) level corresponding to the actual number 

of EU Member States since its enlargement. The United States also used the review process to request 

that the EU notify food assistance provided by Member States, and to address other issues associated with 

EU enlargement. 

The United States also raised questions concerning elements of domestic support programs used by Costa 

Rica, the European Communities, Jordan, Malaysia, Malta, Oman, the Philippines, South Africa, 

Switzerland, Taiwan, and Trinidad and Tobago. 

During 2009, the Committee addressed a number of other issues related to the implementation of the 

Agriculture Agreement, such as: (1) development of internationally-agreed disciplines to govern the 

provision of export credits, export credit guarantees, or insurance programs pursuant to Article 10.2 of the 

Agriculture Agreement, taking into account the effect of such disciplines on NFIDCs; (2) review of 

Members’ notifications on tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) in accordance with the General Council’s decision7

regarding the administration of TRQ regimes in a transparent, equitable, and non-discriminatory manner; 

(3) annual monitoring of the follow-up to the Marrakesh NFIDC Decision on food aid of April 15, 1994; 

and (4) annual consultations, under Article 18.5 of the Agriculture Agreement, concerning Members’ 

participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products within the framework of 

commitments on export subsidies. 

During 2009, the Committee conducted the eighth annual Transitional Review Mechanism for China, as 

required under China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO. The United States asked questions relating to 

China’s domestic support for its pork industry, export VAT rebates, and the Chinese government’s role in 

the agricultural sector, among other topics. 

Also during 2009, the Committee conducted Korea’s 5-year multilateral review of its implementation of 

the WTO Minimum Market Access Agreement to extend special treatment for rice imports, in accordance 

with the 2004 Rice Agreement in which the Special Treatment provisions (Annex 5 of the Agriculture 

Agreement) for rice were extended for an additional 10 years, i.e. until 2014. 

Throughout the year, the Committee worked to improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications. 

As a cornerstone of these efforts, the Secretariat hosted a workshop in September on notification 

preparation, which was attended by most Member countries. 

Prospects for 2010 

The United States will continue to make full use of the Committee to ensure transparency through timely 

notification by Members and to enhance enforcement of Uruguay Round commitments as they relate to 

export subsidies, market access, domestic support, or trade-distorting practices by WTO Members. The 

United States will continue to work closely with the Committee Chair and Secretariat to find ways to 

improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications and to increase the effectiveness of the 

Committee overall. In addition, the Committee will continue to monitor and analyze the impact of the 

possible negative effects of the reform process on LDCs and NFIDCs in accordance with the Agriculture 

Agreement. 

 

7

 WT/L/384 General Council - Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns - Decision of 15 December 2000. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 34 

 

2. Committee on Market Access 

Status 

In January 1995, WTO Members established the Committee on Market Access (MA Committee), 

consolidating the work under the GATT system of the Committee on Tariff Concessions and the 

Technical Group on Quantitative Restrictions and other Non-Tariff Measures. The MA Committee 

supervises the implementation of concessions on tariffs and non-tariff measures where not explicitly 

covered by another WTO body, and is responsible for verification of new concessions on market access in 

the goods area. The Committee reports to the Council on Trade in Goods. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The MA Committee held three formal meetings in April, July, and October 2009 to discuss the following 

topics: (1) the ongoing multilateral review of WTO schedules of Members’ tariff concessions to 

accommodate updates to the Harmonized System (HS) 2002 tariff nomenclature and any other tariff 

modifications; (2) the WTO Integrated Data Base (IDB) and Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) 

database; and (3) finalizing consolidated schedules of WTO tariff concessions in HS 2002 and 2007 

nomenclature. The Committee also conducted its eighth annual Transitional Review of China’s 

implementation of its WTO accession commitments. 

Updates to the HS nomenclature: The MA Committee examines issues related to the transposition and 

renegotiation of the schedules of certain Members that adopted the HS in the years following its 

introduction on January 1, 1988. Since then, the HS nomenclature has been modified by the World 

Customs Organization in 1996, 2002, and 2007. Using agreed examination procedures, WTO Members 

have the right to object to any proposed nomenclature change that affects the level of another Member’s 

tariff rates on bound items on grounds that the new nomenclature (as well as any increase in tariff levels 

for an item above existing bindings) represents a modification of the tariff concession. Members may 

pursue unresolved objections under GATT 1994 Article XXVIII. The majority of Members have 

completed the process of implementing HS 1996 changes, but Argentina and Panama continue to require 

waivers, and additional information is needed from Venezuela in order to finalize certification of its 

HS1996 documentation. 

In 2005, the MA Committee agreed to new procedures using the CTS database and assistance from the 

Secretariat for the introduction into Members’ schedules and verification of the 373 amendments to HS 

nomenclature that took effect on January 1, 2002 (HS 2002). Work on this conversion to HS 2002, which 

is essential to laying the technical groundwork for analyzing the tariff implications of the DDA 

negotiations, continued throughout 2009. At the October 2 meeting, the MA Committee verified the HS 

2002 bound schedule from the United States. The next step will be for the WTO Secretariat to circulate 

the file for multilateral review for 90 days, after which, if no comments or questions are raised by the 

Membership, the U.S. bound schedule in HS 2002 will be formally certified. 

In January 2007, the HS 2007 documentation was circulated to the WTO Membership, including the 

procedures and layout for the transposition from tariff schedules in HS 2002 to HS 2007. However, 

because DDA schedules (to be submitted in the HS 2002 nomenclature) will also need to be transposed 

into the HS 2007 nomenclature, the Committee decided that the current HS 2007 transposition exercise 

would be redundant of this effort and decided to postpone the current exercise and to review the situation 

at its next meeting in 2010. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 35 

Integrated Data Base (IDB): The MA Committee addressed issues concerning the IDB, which is updated 

annually with information on the tariffs, trade data, and non-tariff measures maintained by WTO 

Members. Members are required to provide this information as a result of a General Council Decision 

adopted in July 1997. The United States continues to take an active role in pressing for a more relevant 

database structure with the aim of improving the trade and tariff data supplied by WTO Members. As a 

result, participation has continued to improve, although several major economies have yet to report tariff 

and trade data for 2007 and 2008. For instance, China has yet to submit import data past 2003. In 

addition, as of September 2009, the following Members had not yet submitted tariff and trade information 

for any year to the IDB: Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 

Guinea Bissau, and Vietnam. 

Consolidated Schedule of Tariff Concessions: The MA Committee continued work on implementing an 

electronic structure for tariff and trade data. The CTS includes: tariff bindings for each WTO Member 

that reflect Uruguay Round tariff concessions; HS 1996 and 2002 updates to tariff nomenclature and 

bindings; and any other modifications to the WTO schedule (e.g., participation in the Information 

Technology Agreement). The database also includes agricultural support tables. The CTS has been 

linked to the IDB and serves as the vehicle for conducting the DDA negotiations in agriculture and nonagricultural market access. 

At the formal Committee meeting on July 13, the Committee adopted a decision (G/MA/238) to allow 

public access to the IDB and CTS databases as of January 2010 (with certain access conditions). The 

WTO Secretariat is preparing a public version of the internet analysis facility. 

China Transitional Review: In October 2009, the MA Committee conducted its eighth annual review of 

China’s implementation of its WTO commitments on market access. The United States, with support 

from other WTO Members, raised questions and concerns regarding China’s implementation in the areas 

of export restraints on raw material inputs and value-added tax exemptions. 

Prospects for 2010 

The ongoing work program of the MA Committee, while highly technical, will ensure that all WTO 

Members’ schedules are up-to-date and available in electronic spreadsheet format. The Committee will 

continue to explore technical assistance needs related to data submissions and to finalize Members’ 

amended schedules based on the HS 2002 revision. In addition, the Committee will reassess the work 

plan for conducting the conversion of Members’ schedules to HS 2007. 

3. Committee on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

Status 

The Committee on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Committee) 

provides a forum for the implementation and administration of the Agreement on the Application of 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), consultation on Members’ existing and 

proposed SPS measures, technical assistance, other informational exchanges, and the participation of the 

international standard setting bodies recognized in the SPS Agreement. These international standard 

setting bodies are: for food, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex); for animal health, the World 

Organization for Animal Health (OIE); and for plant health, the International Plant Protection Convention 

(IPPC). 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 36 

 

The SPS Committee also discusses specific provisions of the SPS Agreement. These discussions provide 

an opportunity to develop procedures to assist Members in meeting specific SPS obligations. For 

example, the SPS Committee has issued procedures or guidelines regarding: notification of SPS 

measures; the “consistency” provisions under Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement; equivalence; 

transparency regarding the provisions for special and differential treatment; and regionalization. 

Participation in the SPS Committee, which operates by consensus, is open to all WTO Members. 

Governments engaged in negotiating their accession to the WTO may attend Committee meetings as 

observers. In addition, representatives from a number of international organizations attend Committee 

meetings as observers on an ad hoc, meeting by meeting basis, including: the Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO); the World Health Organization (WHO); the Codex; the IPPC; the OIE; the 

International Trade Center; the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the 

World Bank. 

Major Issues in 2009 

In 2009, the SPS Committee held meetings in March, June, and October. In these meetings, Members 

exchanged views regarding the implementation of SPS Agreement provisions regarding transparency, 

equivalence, and regionalization, including their efforts to declare areas of their country free from 

specified pests and diseases. 

The United States views these exchanges as positive developments as they demonstrate a growing 

familiarity with the provisions of the SPS Agreement and increased recognition of the value of the SPS 

Committee as a forum for the Members to discuss SPS-related trade issues. Many Members, including 

the United States, utilized these meetings to raise concerns regarding new and existing SPS measures of 

other Members. In 2009, the United States raised a number of concerns with measures imposed by other 

Members, including restrictions imposed on U.S. live swine, pork, and pork products due to the outbreak 

of the human H1N1 virus, India’s avian influenza restrictions, and bans imposed by several members on 

the use of the growth additive, ractopamine, in swine. Further, the United States, with a view to 

transparency, informed the SPS Committee of various U.S. measures, both new and proposed, such as the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s proposed Food Registry. 

Other important issues before the SPS Committee include: 

China’s Transitional Review Mechanism: The United States and the EU submitted questions for the SPS 

Committee’s eighth review of China’s implementation of its WTO obligations as provided for in China’s 

WTO Accession Protocol. The United States asked questions regarding China’s BSE restrictions, 

requested information on the status of revision to China’s sampling plans and microbiological criteria for 

food-born pathogens, H1N1 ban on live swine, pork and poultry, and expressed concerns regarding the 

science underlying China ractopamine-related import restriction. The United States also raised its 

concern that China’s import bans related to low pathogenic avian influenza, which adversely affect the 

states of Arkansas and Virginia, do not appear to comply with OIE guidelines. China responded orally to 

questions and concerns raised by Members during the review and restated its commitment to implement 

fully the provisions of the SPS Agreement. 

Notifications: Because it is critical for trading partners to know and understand each other’s laws, the SPS 

notification process, with the Committee’s consistent encouragement, is becoming an increasingly 

important mechanism in the facilitation of international trade. The process also provides a means for 

Members to report on determinations of equivalence and special and differential treatment. The United 
II. The World Trade Organization | 37 

States made 111 SPS notifications to the WTO Secretariat in 2008 and submitted comments on 144 SPS 

measures notified by other Members. 

Private and Commercial Standards: In October, the Committee agreed to review and consider several 

recommendations on how best to proceed on the issue of private standards and their potential impact on 

trade. These recommendations were provided by individual members of the Committee’s smaller 

working group and some of the proposed actions are likely to be considered by the full Committee in 

March 2010. The Committee has also agreed that action would only be taken if there was consensus 

among Members to do so. 

The United States is monitoring the issue closely through its active participation in the working group. 

This group began its work a year ago by collecting specific examples of where private SPS-related 

standards may have had an impact on a country’s ability to export products. The Secretariat distributed a 

questionnaire in February 2009 to solicit specific examples for the working group’s review with responses 

that were compiled for discussion at the June Committee meeting. The United States remains quite 

concerned about whether this is an appropriate issue for the SPS Committee to be devoting resources to 

and continues to work with the Committee and other Members to address that concern. 

Prospects for 2010 

The SPS Committee will hold three meetings in 2010 with informal sessions anticipated to be held in 

advance of each meeting. The Committee has a standing agenda for meetings that can be amended to 

accommodate new or special issues. The SPS Committee will continue to monitor Members’ 

implementation activities and the discussion of specific trade concerns will continue to be an important 

part of the Committee’s activities, including exchanges on BSE, AI, unjustified H1N1 restrictions, food 

safety measures, and technical assistance. 

In 2010, the Committee will complete the Third Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 

Agreement consistent with the Doha Declaration commitment to undertake such reviews at least every 

four years. The United States anticipates that the SPS Committee will focus on furthering priorities 

identified in the second review, including the issuance of guidance regarding ad hoc consultations under 

Article 12.2 of the Agreement, and the provision of technical assistance and special and differential 

treatment. Finally, the Committee will continue to monitor the use and development of international 

standards, guidelines, and recommendations by Codex, OIE, and IPPC. 

4. Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures 

Status 

The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the TRIMS Agreement), which entered into 

force with the establishment of the WTO in 1995, prohibits investment measures that are inconsistent 

with national treatment obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and reinforces the prohibitions 

on quantitative restrictions set out in Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The TRIMS Agreement requires 

the elimination of certain measures imposing requirements on, or linking advantages to, certain actions of 

foreign investors, such as measures that require, or provide benefits for, the incorporation of local inputs 

in manufacturing processes (“local content requirements”) or measures that restrict a firm’s imports to an 

amount related to the quantity of its exports or of its foreign exchange earnings (“trade balancing 

requirements”). The Agreement includes an illustrative list of measures that are inconsistent with Articles 

III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 38 

 

Developments relating to the TRIMS Agreement are monitored and discussed both in the CTG and in the 

Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the TRIMS Committee). Since its establishment in 

1995, the TRIMS Committee has been a forum for the United States and other Members to address 

concerns, gather information, and raise questions about the maintenance, introduction, or modification of 

TRIMS by Members. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The TRIMS Committee held two formal meeting during 2009, in May and October. 

In May 2009 the United States and the European Communities filed a joint submission with the 

Committee on “Certain New and Proposed Measures by Indonesia Addressing Local Content in 

Investment in the Telecommunications Sector.” G/TRIMS/W/61(8 May 2009). This document posed 

factual questions to Indonesia about certain new and proposed measures applicable to investment in 

Indonesia's telecommunications sector, and in particular whether these measures are in conformity with 

provisions applicable to requirements for minimum local content under the TRIMS Agreement and 

GATT 1994. Indonesia responded to those question in a document dated September 17, 2009. 

G/TRIMS/W/63 (17 September 2009). 

In October 2009 the United States and the European Communities filed a joint submission with the 

Committee on “Certain Indonesian Laws and Draft Implementing Regulations on Mineral and Coal 

Mining.” G/TRIMS/W/70 (9 October 2009). This document posed factual questions to Indonesia about 

its existing law, and its draft implementing regulations, applicable to investment activities in the mineral 

and coal mining sector. In particular, the submission raised questions about whether these measures are 

in conformity with provisions applicable to requirements for minimum local content under the TRIMS 

Agreement and GATT 1994. As of the date of this report, Indonesia has not responded to these questions. 

As part of the review of special and differential treatment provisions, the TRIMS Committee continued to 

consider several TRIMS-related proposals submitted by a group of Members from Africa. Although 

these proposals remain on the agenda of the TRIMS Committee, there has been little movement toward 

consensus on these issues. There was no substantive discussion of these proposals during the formal 

meetings. 

Pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China to the WTO, 

the TRIMS Committee conducted its seventh annual review in 2009 of China’s implementation of the 

TRIMS Agreement and related provisions of the Protocol. The United States’ main objectives in this 

review were to obtain information and clarification regarding China’s WTO compliance efforts. During 

the October meeting of the TRIMS Committee, China addressed such issues of interest to the United 

States as its automobile and steel policies, as well as its guidance for foreign investment. U.S. agencies 

are analyzing China’s policies in an effort to decide whether and how to pursue these issues in the future. 

Prospects for 2010 

The United States will engage other Members in efforts to promote compliance with the TRIMS 

Agreement and avoid weakening the disciplines of that Agreement. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 39 

5. Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

Status

The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement) provides rules and 

disciplines for the use of government subsidies and the application of remedies – through either WTO 

dispute settlement or countervailing duty (CVD) action – to address subsidized trade that causes harmful 

commercial effects. Subsidies contingent upon export performance and subsidies contingent upon the use 

of domestic over imported goods are prohibited. All other subsidies are permitted, but are actionable 

(through CVD or WTO dispute settlement actions) if they are (i) “specific”, i.e., limited to a firm, 

industry, or group thereof within the territory of a WTO Member, and (ii) found to cause adverse trade 

effects, such as material injury to a domestic industry or serious prejudice to the trade interests of another 

Member. 

Major Issues in 2009

The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Committee) held two formal 

meetings in 2009, in May and October, and held informal meetings in March, July and October. The 

Committee continued to review the consistency of Members’ domestic laws, regulations, and actions with 

the SCM Agreement’s requirements, as well as Members’ notifications of their subsidy programs to the 

Committee. Importantly, the Committee adopted modifications to its reporting formats in order to 

improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications. During the October meeting, the Committee 

held its eighth review of China’s implementation of the SCM Agreement, pursuant to the Transitional 

Review Mechanism provided by China’s protocol of WTO accession. Other items addressed in the 

course of the year included: examination and approval of specific export subsidy program extension 

requests for certain small economy developing country Members; election of Mr. Gerard Depayre to the 

five-member Permanent Group of Experts; and updating the eligibility threshold for developing countries 

to provide export subsidies under Annex VII(b) of the SCM Agreement. Further information on these 

various activities is provided below. 

Review and Discussion of Notifications: Throughout the year, Members submitted notifications of: (1) 

new or amended CVD legislation and regulations; (2) CVD investigations initiated and decisions taken; 

and (3) Members’ subsidy programs. Notifications of CVD legislation and actions, as well as subsidy 

notifications, were reviewed and discussed by the SCM Committee at its May and October meetings. 

In reviewing notified CVD legislation and subsidies, SCM Committee procedures provide for the 

exchange in advance of written questions and answers in order to clarify the operation of the notified 

measures and their relationship to the obligations of the SCM Agreement. As of the end of 2009, 90 

WTO Members (counting the 27 member states of the European Union as a single Member) have notified 

their CVD legislation or lack thereof; 35 Members have so far failed to make a legislative notification. In 

2009, the Committee reviewed notifications of new or amended CVD laws and regulations from 

Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, and the United States, among others.8

 

As for CVD measures, nine Members notified CVD actions they took during the latter half of 2008, and 

eleven Members notified actions they took in the first half of 2009. Specifically, the SCM Committee 

reviewed actions taken by several Members, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, and the United 

States. 

 

8 In keeping with WTO practice, the review of legislative provisions which pertain or apply to both antidumping and 

CVD actions by a Member generally took place in the Antidumping Committee.
 II. The World Trade Organization | 40 

 

In 2009, the Committee examined four 2009 and eleven 2007 new and full subsidy notifications. 

Unfortunately, numerous Members have yet to make even an initial subsidy notification to the WTO, 

although many of them are least developed country Members. In May 2009, the United States submitted 

its 2007 new and full subsidies notification, detailing over 50 federal programs and over 500 state 

programs. 

Notification Improvements: During 2009, the SCM Committee adopted several changes to the standard 

format for semi-annual reports of countervailing measures and the minimum information to be provided 

in connection with the notification of preliminary or final countervailing measures, as required under 

Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement. In October 2009, the Committee adopted changes analogous to 

those made in the Antidumping Committee, as well as certain proposals made by the United States. The 

new notification format streamlines and improves the information available in notifications of preliminary 

and final countervailing actions. The new format will also result in helpful new information being 

provided, such as the names of programs determined to be countervailable in all CVD proceedings. 

Members are also now encouraged to submit electronically to the WTO Secretariat copies of the public 

determinations of countervailing duty actions – even if in a non-WTO language – as attachments to the ad 

hoc notifications of preliminary and final determinations. Overall, the additional information provided 

will increase transparency as to countervailing duty actions taken and help Members to identify tradedistorting subsidy practices. 

In March 2009, the Chairman of the Trade Policy Review Body, acting through the Chairman of the 

General Council, requested that all committees discuss "ways to improve the timeliness and completeness 

of notifications and other information flows on trade measures". The United States fully supported this 

initiative throughout the year and developed proposals that would encourage Members to be more 

transparent in their industrial subsidy policies. Discussions took place throughout 2009, and 

consequently, the Committee agreed that a new annex should be included in the Committee’s annual 

report that will provide greater detail regarding the extent to which each Member has or has not met its 

subsidy notification obligations. Additionally, a new “one-time” notification format was created for 

Members – largely least developed country Members – that have not established a legal framework and 

competent authorities to conduct CVD investigations. Lastly, Committee Members agreed to provide all 

notifications electronically to the Secretariat, which will facilitate and expedite circulation and posting on 

the WTO website. 

China Transitional Review: At the October meeting, the SCM Committee held its eighth review of the 

implementation of the commitments relating to subsidies, countervailing duties and pricing policies, 

pursuant to the People’s Republic of China Protocol of Accession Transitional Review Mechanism. 

During the Transitional Review in 2009, the United States reiterated its concerns as to the lack of 

provincial and local programs in China’s subsidy notification and raised several other issues, including 

export-contingent subsidies, industrial subsidy policy administration, government assistance in the textile 

and civil aerospace sectors, price controls on fuels, and land administration. 

As a result of pressure from the United States and other WTO Members, China submitted its first 

subsidies notification to the WTO’s Subsidies Committee in April 2006. Although the notification 

covered over 70 subsidy programs, it omitted numerous programs and failed to include any subsidies 

provided by provincial and local government authorities. The United States has devoted significant time 

and resources to researching, monitoring and analyzing China’s subsidy practices, which helped to 

identify the very significant omissions in China’s subsidy notification and lay the groundwork for the 

further pursuit of issues in the context of the Committee’s work or WTO dispute settlement (see, for 

example, the Dispute Settlement Understanding section below). During the Transitional Review, China 
II. The World Trade Organization | 41 

stated it is in the final stages of its internal review with respect to its next subsidy notification. 

Unfortunately, however, China also stated that this next notification will not include information on 

provincial and local programs. In light of the importance of this information, the United States will have 

to consider alternative approaches to address this continuing issue. 

Extension of the transition period for the phase out of export subsidies: Under the SCM Agreement, most 

developing country Members were obligated to eliminate their export subsidies by December 31, 2002. 

To address the concerns of certain small economies, a special procedure within the context of Article 27.4 

of the SCM Agreement was adopted at the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference to provide for facilitated 

annual extensions of the time available to eliminate certain notified export subsidies.9

 The General 

Council, in 2007, acting on an SCM Committee recommendation, extended the application of the special 

procedure. An important outcome of these negotiations, insisted upon by the United States and other 

developed and developing countries, was that the beneficiaries must eliminate all export subsidy 

programs no later than 2015 and that they will have no recourse to further extensions beyond 2015. 

During 2009, the SCM Committee reviewed and approved over 40 export subsidy program extension 

requests under the special procedure. The reviews focused on satisfaction of the detailed standstill and 

transparency requirements set out in the special procedure. Some of the beneficiary Members used the 

opportunity of the review to highlight steps they are undertaking to prepare for the elimination of the 

export subsidies on schedule in 2015. 

Permanent Group of Experts: Article 24 of the SCM Agreement directs the Committee to establish a 

Permanent Group of Experts (PGE) “composed of five independent persons, highly qualified in the fields 

of subsidies and trade relations.” The SCM Agreement articulates three possible roles for the PGE: (i) to 

provide, at the request of a dispute settlement panel, a binding ruling on whether a particular practice 

brought before that panel constitutes a prohibited subsidy, within the meaning of Article 3 of the SCM 

Agreement; (ii) to provide, at the request of the Committee, an advisory opinion on the existence and 

nature of any subsidy; and (iii) to provide, at the request of a Member, a “confidential” advisory opinion 

on the nature of any subsidy proposed to be introduced or currently maintained by that Member. To date, 

the PGE has not yet been called upon to perform any of the aforementioned duties. Article 24 of the 

SCM Agreement further provides for the Committee to elect the experts to the PGE, with one of the five 

experts being replaced every year. 

 At the beginning of 2009, the Permanent Group of Experts had five members: Mr. Asger Petersen 

(Denmark), Dr. Chang-fa Lo (Chinese Taipei); Dr. Manzoor Ahmad (Pakistan); Mr. Zhang Yuqing 

(China); and Mr. Jeffrey A. May (United States). Mr. Peterson’s term ended in Spring 2009 and the 

Committee elected Mr. Gerard Depayre (European Union) to replace him. 

 

The Methodology for Annex VII (b) of the SCM Agreement: Annex VII of the SCM Agreement identifies 

certain lesser developed country Members that are eligible for particular special and differential 

treatment. Specifically, the export subsidies of these Members are not prohibited and, therefore, are not 

actionable as prohibited subsidies under the dispute settlement process. The Members identified in 

Annex VII include those WTO Members designated by the United Nations as “least developed countries” 

(Annex VII(a)) as well as countries that had, at the time of the negotiation of the Agreement, a per capita 

GNP under $1,000 per annum and are specifically listed in Annex VII(b).10 A country automatically 

 

9

 Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, 

Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaica, Jordan, Mauritius, Panama, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. 

Vincent and the Grenadines, and Uruguay have made yearly requests since 2002 under these special procedures. 

10 Members identified in Annex VII(b) are: Bolivia, Cameroon, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Egypt, 

Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 42 

 

“graduates” from Annex VII (b) status when its per capita GNP rises above the $1,000 threshold. At the 

Fourth Ministerial Conference, decisions were made which led to the adoption of an approach to calculate 

the $1,000 threshold in constant 1990 dollars. The WTO Secretariat updated these calculations in 2009.11 

Prospects for 2010

In 2010, the United States will continue to focus on China’s subsidy programs, particularly those 

programs not notified and those programs administered at the provincial and local levels that may be 

prohibited under the SCM Agreement. Assuming China submits a new subsidy notification, the United 

States will closely scrutinize it and may bring to the notice of the Committee unreported subsidies, 

particularly subsidies at the provincial or local level that appear to be prohibited. The Committee will 

continue to work in 2010 to improve upon Members’ notification obligations. Among the proposals that 

may be addressed further are two issues raised by the United States; namely, the failure of Members to 

respond to subsidy program questions submitted pursuant to Article 25.8 of the SCM Agreement and the 

significant lack of notification of sub-central subsidy programs across the Membership. Finally, given the 

various stimulus packages Members have implemented in response to the financial crisis, it is expected 

that the Committee will remain a forum to discuss the consistency of such programs with Members’ 

obligations under the SCM Agreement. 

6. Committee on Customs Valuation 

Status 

The purpose of the Agreement on the Implementation of GATT Article VII (known as the WTO 

Agreement on Customs Valuation, referred to herein as the “Valuation Agreement”) is to ensure that 

determinations of the customs value for the application of duty rates to imported goods are conducted in a 

neutral and uniform manner, precluding the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values. Adherence to 

the Agreement is important for U.S. exporters, particularly to ensure that market access opportunities 

achieved through tariff reductions are not negated by unwarranted and unreasonable “uplifts” in the 

customs value of goods to which tariffs are applied. The use of arbitrary and inappropriate “uplifts” in 

the valuation of goods by importing countries when applying tariffs can result in an unwarranted doubling 

or tripling of duties. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The Valuation Agreement is administered by the Committee on Customs Valuation (the Customs 

Valuation Committee), which held two formal meetings in 2009. The Agreement established a Technical 

Committee on Customs Valuation under the auspices of the World Customs Organization (WCO) with a 

view to ensuring, at the technical level, uniformity in interpretation and application of the Valuation 

Agreement. The Technical Committee also held two meetings in 2009. 

In accordance with a 1999 recommendation of the WTO Working Party on Preshipment Inspection that 

was adopted by the General Council, the Customs Valuation Committee continued to provide a forum for 

reviewing the operation of various Members’ preshipment inspection regimes and the implementation of 

the WTO Agreement on Preshipment Inspection. 

 Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. In recognition of the technical error made in the final compilation of this list and 

pursuant to a General Council decision, Honduras was formally added to AnnexVII(b) on January 20, 2001. 11 See G/SCM/110/Add.6.
II. The World Trade Organization | 43 

The use of minimum import prices, a practice inconsistent with the provisions of the Agreement, 

continues to diminish as more developing country Members undertake full implementation of the 

Agreement. The United States has used the Customs Valuation Committee as an important forum for 

addressing concerns on behalf of U.S. exporters across all sectors - including agriculture, automotive, 

textile, steel, and information technology products - that have experienced difficulties related to the 

conduct of customs valuation regimes outside of the disciplines set forth under the Agreement. 

Achieving universal adherence to the Valuation Agreement in the Uruguay Round was an important 

objective of the United States. The Agreement was initially negotiated in the Tokyo Round, but its 

acceptance was voluntary until mandated as part of membership in the WTO. A proper valuation 

methodology under the Agreement, avoiding arbitrary determinations or officially-established minimum 

import prices, is essential for the realization of market access commitments. Just as important, the 

implementation of the Agreement also often represents the first concrete and meaningful steps taken by 

developing country Members toward reforming their customs administrations and diminishing corruption, 

and ultimately moving to a rules-based trade facilitation environment. 

An important part of the Customs Valuation Committee’s work is the examination of implementing 

legislation. As of October 2009, 80 Members had notified their national legislation on customs valuation 

(this figure does not include the 27 individual EU Members); 46 Members have not yet notified their 

national legislation on customs valuation. During 2009, the Committee concluded the review of 

legislation of Tanzania. At the Committee’s May and October 2009 meetings, the Committee undertook 

its examination of the custom valuation legislations of Albania, Bahrain, Belize, China, Egypt, Nigeria, 

Norway, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Thailand, Tunisia and Ukraine. The Committee’s examination 

of these Members’ customs valuation legislation will continue in 2010. 

Working with information provided by U.S. exporters, the United States played a leadership role in these 

examinations, submitting in some cases a series of detailed questions as well as suggestions toward 

improved implementation, particularly with regard to customs valuation practices of Bahrain, China, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Thailand, and Ukraine. 

In 2009, the Customs Valuation Committee concluded China’s Eighth Transitional Review in accordance 

with the Protocol of Accession of the People’s Republic of China to the WTO. During 2009, the United 

States again voiced concerns about China’s customs-related regulatory measures and legislation. The 

United States has been concerned about the implementation of these measures by China’s customs 

personnel. At the 2008 Customs Valuation Committee meeting, China provided oral answers to the 

United States questions. China’s written responses were not circulated until days before October 2009 

meeting. The written answers are under review and will be taken up in 2010. 

The Customs Valuation Committee’s work throughout 2009 continued to reflect a cooperative focus 

among all Members toward practical methods to address the specific problems of individual Members. 

As part of its problem-solving approach, the Committee continued to take an active role in exploring how 

best to ensure effective technical assistance, including with regard to meeting post-implementation needs 

of developing country Members. 

Prospects for 2010 

The Customs Valuation Committee’s work in 2010 will include reviewing the relevant implementing 

legislation and regulations notified by Members, along with addressing any further requests by other 

Members concerning implementation deadlines. The Committee will monitor progress by Members with 

regard to their respective work programs that were included in the decisions granting transitional 

reservations or extensions of time for implementation. In this regard, the Committee will continue to 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 44 

 

provide a forum for sustained focus on issues arising from practices of all Members that have 

implemented the Valuation Agreement, to ensure that such Members’ customs valuation regimes do not 

utilize arbitrary or fictitious values such as through the use of minimum import prices. Finally, the 

Committee will continue to address technical assistance issues as a matter of high priority. 

7. Committee on Rules of Origin 

Status 

The objective of the Agreement on Rules of Origin (the ROO Agreement) is to increase transparency, 

predictability and consistency in both the preparation and application of rules of origin. The ROO 

Agreement provides important disciplines for conducting preferential and non-preferential origin regimes, 

such as the obligation to provide binding origin rulings upon request to traders within 150 days of that 

request. In addition to setting forth disciplines related to the administration of rules of origin, the ROO 

Agreement provides for a work program leading to the multilateral harmonization of rules of origin used 

for non-preferential trade. The Harmonization Work Programme (HWP) is more complex than initially 

envisioned under the Agreement, which originally provided for the work to be completed within three 

years after its commencement in July 1995. This work program continued throughout 2009 and will 

continue into 2010. 

The ROO Agreement is administered by the Committee on Rules of Origin (the ROO Committee), which 

met formally twice in 2009, and held informal consultations throughout the year. The Committee also 

serves as a forum to exchange views on notifications by Members concerning their national rules of 

origin, along with those relevant judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application. The 

ROO Agreement also established a Technical Committee on Rules of Origin with the World Customs 

Organization to assist in the HWP. 

Major Issues in 2009 

As of the end of 2009, 80 Members notified the WTO concerning non-preferential rules of origin. In 

these notifications, 38 Members notified that they had non-preferential rules of origin and 42 Members 

notified that they did not have a non-preferential rule of origin regime. Forty-six Members have not 

notified non-preferential rules of origin. 

Eighty-six Members have notified the WTO concerning preferential rules of origin, of which 82 notified 

their preferential rules of origin and four notified that they did not have preferential rules of origin. 

Thirty-six Members have notified preferential rules of origin to other WTO bodies. 

Virtually all issues and problems cited by U.S. exporters as arising under the origin regimes of U.S. 

trading partners arise from administrative practices that are not transparent, allow discrimination, and lack 

predictability. Substantial attention has been given to the implementation of the ROO Agreement’s 

important disciplines related to transparency, which constitute internationally recognized “best customs 

practices.” 

Many of the ROO Agreement’s obligations, such as issuing binding rulings upon request of traders in 

advance of trade, have frequently been cited as a model for more broad-based commitments that could 

emerge from future WTO work on Trade Facilitation. 

The ROO Agreement has provided a means for addressing and resolving many problems facing U.S. 

exporters pertaining to origin regimes, and the ROO Committee has been active in its review of the 
II. The World Trade Organization | 45 

Agreement’s implementation. The ongoing HWP leading to the multilateral harmonization of nonpreferential product-specific rules of origin has attracted a great deal of attention and resources. Progress 

has been made toward completion of this effort, despite the large volume and magnitude of complex 

issues which must be addressed for hundreds of specific products. 

The ROO Committee continued to focus on the work program to achieve multilateral harmonization of 

non-preferential rules of origin. U.S. proposals for the HWP have been developed under the auspices of a 

Section 332 study, which was conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission pursuant to a 

request by USTR. The U.S. proposals reflect input received from ongoing consultations with the private 

sector as the negotiations have progressed from the technical stage to deliberations at the ROO 

Committee. Representatives from several U.S. Government agencies continue to be involved in the 

HWP, including USTR, Customs and Border Protection (formerly the U.S. Customs Service), Commerce, 

and Agriculture. 

In addition to the June and October 2009 formal meetings, the ROO Committee conducted informal 

consultations related to the HWP negotiations. The Committee’s work in 2009 proceeded in response to 

the July 28, 2006 General Council extension of the deadline for completion of work on the 94 core policy 

issues. The General Council then agreed that following resolution of the core policy issues, the 

Committee would complete its remaining work on the HWP by December 2007. Notwithstanding this 

deadline, the HWP has not been completed. 

While the ROO Committee made some progress towards fulfilling the mandate of the ROO Agreement to 

establish harmonized non-preferential rules of origin, the Committee is still grappling with a number of 

fundamental issues including many product-specific rules of origin for agricultural and industrial goods, 

and the scope of the prospective obligation to apply equally for all purposes the harmonized nonpreferential rules of origin. 

This issue and the remaining “core policy issues” are among the most difficult and sensitive matters for 

the Members and continued commitment and flexibility from all Members will be required to conclude 

the work program and implement the non-preferential rules of origin. 

Because of the impasse among Members on: (i) the product-specific rules related to the 94 core policy 

issues; (ii) the absence of a common understanding of scope of the prospective obligation to apply equally 

for all purposes the harmonized non-preferential rules of origin; and (iii) the growing concern among 

Members that the final result of the HWP negotiations would not produce a result consistent with the 

objectives of the HWP set forth in Article 9 of the ROO Agreement, the General Council recognized that 

its guidance was needed on how to resolve these issues. At the July 2007 General Council meeting, the 

General Council endorsed the recommendation of the ROO Committee that substantive work on these 

issues be suspended until the ROO Committee receives the necessary guidance from the General Council 

on how to reconcile the differences among Members on the above-mentioned issues. The General 

Council also agreed with the recommendation of the Chair of the ROO Committee that the Committee 

would continue its work with a view to resolving all technical issues as soon as possible and report 

periodically to the General Council on its efforts in this regard. The Chair reported to the Council for 

Trade in Goods in October 2009 that the ROO Committee had continued work on technical issues as 

directed by the General Council in 2007. 

In the two 2009 ROO Committee meetings, the Members focused on the technical issues, including the 

technical aspects of the overall architecture that would be used for applying the rules of origin. The 

Members also began a discussion of the architecture for Chapters 84-90 of the Harmonized Tariff System. 

Both architectures contain a hierarchy for applying the different rules for determining origin. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 46 

 

Prospects for 2010 

Further progress in the HWP will remain contingent on achieving appropriate resolution of the “core 

policy issues”, to reaching a consensus on the scope of the prospective obligation to apply equally for all 

purposes the harmonized non-preferential rules of origin, and achieving a result that is consistent with the 

objectives set forth in Article 9 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. In accordance with the decision 

taken by the General Council in July 2007 and subject to further guidance from the General Council in the 

future, the ROO Committee will continue to focus on technical issues, including the technical aspects of 

the overall architecture of the HWP product-specific rules, through informal consultations. The ROO 

Committee will continue to report periodically to the General Council on its progress in resolving these 

technical issues. 

8. Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade 

Status

The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement) establishes rules and procedures 

regarding the development, adoption, and application of voluntary standards and mandatory technical 

regulations for products and the procedures (such as testing or certification) used to determine whether a 

particular product meets such standards or regulations. One of the main objectives of the TBT Agreement 

is to prevent the use of technical requirements as unnecessary barriers to trade while ensuring that 

Members retain the right to regulate, inter alia, for the protection of health, safety, or the environment, at 

the levels they consider appropriate. 

The TBT Agreement applies to industrial as well as agricultural products, although it does not apply to 

sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures or specifications for government procurement, which are 

covered under separate agreements. TBT Agreement rules help to distinguish legitimate standards, 

conformity assessment procedures, and technical regulations from protectionist measures and other 

measures that act as unnecessary obstacles to trade. For example, the TBT Agreement requires nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the application of standards, technical regulations, and 

conformity assessment procedures and requires that standards, technical regulations, and conformity 

assessment procedures be no more trade-restrictive than necessary to meet a legitimate objective and 

based on relevant international standards and guidelines, except where such standards and guidelines 

would be ineffective or inappropriate to meet a legitimate objective. 

The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Committee)12 serves as a forum for consultation 

on issues associated with the implementation and administration of the TBT Agreement. The TBT 

Committee is composed of representatives of each WTO Member and provides an opportunity for 

 

12 Participation in the Committee is open to all WTO Members. Certain non-WTO Member governments also 

participate, in accordance with guidance agreed on by the General Council. Representatives of a number of 

organizations were invited to attend meetings of the Committee as observers: the International Monetary Fund 

(IMF), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD); the International Trade Center 

(ITC); the International Organization for Standardization (ISO); the International Electrotechnical Commission 

(IEC); the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); the World Health Organization (WHO); the FAO/WHO 

Codex Alimentarius Commission; the International Office of Epizootics (OIE); the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD); the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE); and the World 

Bank. The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), the United Nations Industrial Development 

Organization (UNIDO), the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI), the European Free Trade Association 

(EFTA), and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) have been granted observer status on an ad 

hoc basis.
II. The World Trade Organization | 47 

Members to discuss concerns about specific standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment 

procedures proposed or maintained by a Member, as well as more systemic issues affecting 

implementation of the TBT Agreement, and to exchange of information on Members’ practices related to 

implementation of the TBT Agreement and relevant international developments. 

Transparency and Availability of WTO/TBT Documents: A key benefit to the public resulting from the 

TBT Agreement is the ability to obtain information on proposed technical regulations and conformity 

assessment procedures, and to provide written comments for consideration on those proposals before they 

are finalized. Each Member is required to establish a central contact point, known as an inquiry point, 

which is responsible for responding to requests for information on its standards, technical requirements, 

and conformity assessment procedures or making the appropriate referral. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) serves as the U.S. inquiry point for purposes 

of the TBT Agreement. NIST maintains a reference collection of standards, specifications, test methods, 

codes, and recommended practices. This reference material includes U.S. Government agencies’ 

technical regulations and standards of non-governmental standardizing bodies. The inquiry point 

responds to requests for information concerning federal and State standards, technical regulations, and 

conformity assessment procedures as well as voluntary standards and conformity assessment procedures 

developed or adopted by non-governmental bodies. Upon request, NIST will provide copies of 

notifications of proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures that other Members 

have made under the TBT Agreement, as well as contact information for other Members’ TBT inquiry 

points. NIST refers requests for information concerning standards, conformity assessment procedures, 

and technical regulations for agricultural products, including SPS measures, to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, which is the U.S. inquiry point pursuant to the WTO Agreement on the Application of 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 

A number of documents relating to the work of the TBT Committee are available to the public directly 

from the WTO website: http://www.wto.org. TBT Committee documents are indicated by the symbols, 

“G/TBT/...”. Notifications by Members of proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment 

procedures that are available for comment are issued as: G/TBT/N (the “N” stands for “notification”)/USA

(which in this case stands for the United States of America; three letter symbols will be used to designate 

the WTO Member originating the notification)/X (where “x” will indicate the numerical sequence for that 

Member).13 Parties in the United States interested in submitting comments to foreign governments on 

their proposals should send them through the U.S. inquiry point at the address above. Minutes of the TBT 

Committee meetings are issued as “G/TBT/M/...” (followed by a number). Submissions by Members 

(e.g., statements, informational documents, proposals, etc.) and other working documents of the 

Committee are issued as “G/TBT/W/...” (followed by a number). Decisions and recommendations 

adopted by the TBT Committee are contained in G/TBT/1/Rev.9. As a general rule, written information 

that the United States provides to the TBT Committee is submitted on an “unrestricted” basis and is 

available to the public on the WTO website. The WTO Secretariat has expanded the information it 

provides on its “technical barriers to trade” website that is available to the public, including summaries of 

meetings, agendas, workshops, technical assistance, and key documents. 

With the implementation of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, all Members assumed 

responsibility for compliance with the TBT Agreement. Although a predecessor to the TBT Agreement 

existed as a result of the Tokyo Round, known as the Standards Code, the expansion of its applicability to 

all Members as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations was significant, and resulted in new 

obligations for many Members. For example, the TBT Agreement provides an opportunity for interested 

 

13 Before 2000, the numbering of notifications of proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment 

procedures read: “G/TBT/Notif./...” (followed by a number).
 II. The World Trade Organization | 48 

 

parties in the United States to influence the development of proposed technical regulations and 

conformity assessment procedures being developed by other Members by allowing them to provide 

written comments on drafts and submit them through the U.S. inquiry point. Among other things, this 

opportunity helps to prevent the establishment of technical barriers to trade. The TBT Agreement has 

functioned well in this regard, although discussions on how to improve its operation occurs as part of the 

triennial review process (see below). Disciplines and obligations such as the prohibition on 

discrimination and the requirement that measures are not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill 

legitimate regulatory objectives have been useful in evaluating potential trade barriers and in seeking 

ways to address them. 

The TBT Committee also plays an important monitoring and oversight role. It has served as a 

constructive forum for discussing and resolving issues and avoiding disputes. Since its inception, an 

increasing number of Members, including developing countries, have used the Committee to highlight 

trade problems.

Article 15.4 of the TBT Agreement requires the Committee to review the operation and implementation 

of the TBT Agreement every three years. Five such reviews have now been completed (G/TBT/5, 

G/TBT/9, G/TBT/13, G/TBT/19, and G/TBT/26). From the U.S. perspective, a key benefit of these 

reviews is that they prompt WTO Members to review and discuss all of the provisions of the TBT 

Agreement, which facilitates a common understanding of Members’ rights and obligations. The reviews 

have also prompted the Committee to host workshops on various topics of interest, including technical 

assistance, conformity assessment, labeling, good regulatory practice, and international standards. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The TBT Committee met three times in 2009, March (G/TBT/M/47), June (G/TBT/M/48), and November 

(G/TBT/M/49). At some of these meetings, Members made statements informing the Committee of 

measures they had taken to implement the TBT Agreement and to administer measures in compliance 

with the Agreement. Members also used Committee meetings to raise concerns about specific technical 

regulations or conformity assessment procedures proposed or adopted by other Members. The number of 

new specific trade concerns with regard to Members’ implementation and administration of the TBT 

Agreement that were brought to the attention of the TBT Committee set a record in 2009 with 37 (up 

from 33 in 2008). EU measures, such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and 

Restriction of Chemicals), the classification of borates, nickel carbonates, and nickel compounds under 

the Dangerous Substances Directive, and the recast of the Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) 

regulation continue to draw significant attention in the Committee, as do China’s proposed measures in 

the information technology realm. 

In 2009, the Committee continued its exchange of experiences on good regulatory practice, conformity 

assessment procedures, transparency, technical assistance, international standards, and special and 

differential treatment. At its November 2009 meeting, the Committee adopted the Fifth Triennial Review 

of the Operation and Implementation of the TBT Agreement. The report contains useful 

recommendations regarding, inter alia, good regulatory practice, internal coordination between trade and 

regulatory officials on TBT matters, regulatory cooperation, information exchange on conformity 

assessment procedures, and the TBT Committee Decision on Principles for the Development of 

International Standards. 

At its March 2009 meeting, the TBT Committee adopted the Fourteenth Annual Review of the 

Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement under Article 15.3 (G/TBT/25). The WTO 

Secretariat also updated the relevant lists of standardizing bodies that have accepted the Code of Good 
II. The World Trade Organization | 49 

Practice for the Preparation, Adoption, and Application of Standards set out in Annex 3 of the Agreement 

(G/TBT/CS/1/Add.13 and G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.15). 

At the November 2009 meeting, the TBT Committee also completed the Eighth Annual Transitional 

Review mandated in the Protocol of Accession of the People’s Republic of China. The United States 

(G/TBT/W/324), Japan (G/TBT/W/325), and the EU (G/TBT/W/326) submitted written comments and 

questions. China’s submission is contained in G/TBT/W/327. The Committee’s report on the Review is 

contained in G/TBT/27. 

During the 2009 meetings of the TBT Committee, representatives of Codex, IEC, ISO, ITC, OECD, 

OIML, UNECE, and UNIDO (observers to the Committee) updated the Committee on their activities 

relevant to its work, including on technical assistance. 

Prospects for 2010 

The TBT Committee will continue to monitor Members’ implementation of the TBT Agreement. The 

number of specific trade concerns raised in the Committee appears to be increasing. Aside from the 

specific trade concerns, the Committee will begin work on the work items identified in the Fifth Triennial 

Review, including holding a workshop on regulatory cooperation. Discussion of new issues will be 

driven by Member statements and submissions. In 2010, U.S. priorities are likely to continue to focus on 

the use of good regulatory practice, transparency, encouraging the use of the TBT Committee Decision on 

Principles for the Development of International Standards, and the need to consider available scientific 

and technical information and the intended end uses of products when regulating. 

9. Committee on Antidumping Practices 

Status 

The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 

(the Antidumping Agreement) sets forth detailed rules and disciplines prescribing the manner and basis 

on which Members may take action to offset the injurious dumping of products imported from another 

Member. Implementation of the Antidumping Agreement is overseen by the Committee on Antidumping 

Practices (the Antidumping Committee), which operates in conjunction with two subsidiary bodies, the 

Working Group on Implementation (formerly the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation), and the Informal 

Group on Anticircumvention. 

The Antidumping Committee is an important venue for reviewing Members’ compliance with the detailed 

provisions in the Antidumping Agreement, improving mutual understanding of those provisions, and 

providing opportunities to exchange views and experiences with respect to Members’ application of 

antidumping remedies. 

The Working Group on Implementation (the Working Group) is an active body which focuses on 

practical issues and concerns relating to implementation. Based on papers submitted by Members on 

specific topics for discussion, the activities of the Working Group permit Members to develop a better 

understanding of the similarities and differences in their policies and practices for implementing the 

provisions of the Antidumping Agreement. Where possible, the Working Group endeavors to develop 

draft recommendations on the topics it discusses which it forwards to the Antidumping Committee for 

consideration. To date, the Antidumping Committee has adopted Working Group recommendations on 

five antidumping topics. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 50 

 

The Working Group has drawn a high level of participation by Members and, in particular, by capitalbased experts and officials of antidumping administering authorities, many of whom are eager to obtain 

insight and information from their peers. Since the inception of the Working Group, the United States has 

submitted papers on most topics and has been an active participant at all meetings. While not a 

negotiating forum in either a technical or formal sense, the Working Group serves an important role in 

promoting improved understanding of the Antidumping Agreement’s provisions and exploring options for 

improving practices among antidumping administrators. 

At Marrakesh in 1994, Ministers adopted a Decision on Anticircumvention directing the Antidumping 

Committee to develop rules to address the problem of circumvention of antidumping measures. In 1997, 

the Antidumping Committee agreed upon a framework for discussing this important topic and established 

the Informal Group on Anticircumvention (the Informal Group). Many Members, including the United 

States, recognize the importance of using the Informal Group to pursue the 1994 decision by Ministers. 

Major Issues in 2009

In 2009, the Antidumping Committee held meetings on May 8 and October 21. At its meetings, the 

Antidumping Committee focused on implementation of the Antidumping Agreement, in particular, by 

continuing its review of Members’ antidumping legislation. The Committee also reviewed reports 

required of Members that provide information as to preliminary and final antidumping measures and 

actions taken over the preceding six months. 

The following is a list of the more significant activities that the Antidumping Committee, the Working 

Group, and the Informal Group undertook in 2009: 

Notification and Review of Antidumping Legislation: To date, 72 Members have notified that they 

currently have antidumping legislation in place and 29 Members have notified that they maintain no such 

legislation. In 2009, the Antidumping Committee reviewed new notifications of antidumping legislation 

and/or regulations submitted by Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Belize, Brazil, Dominican Republic, 

Honduras, Kenya, Norway, Panama, Peru, Surinam, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The Committee 

also continued its review of previously-reviewed legislative notifications submitted by El Salvador, 

Panama, and Ukraine. Several Members, including the United States, were active in formulating written 

questions and in making follow-up inquiries at Antidumping Committee meetings. 

Notification and Review of Antidumping Actions: In 2009, 24 Members notified that they had taken 

antidumping actions during the latter half of 2008, whereas 23 Members did so with respect to the first 

half of 2009. (By comparison, 24 Members notified that they had not taken any antidumping actions 

during the latter half of 2008, and 21 Members notified that they had taken no actions in the first half of 

2009). These actions, as well as outstanding antidumping measures currently maintained by Members, 

were identified in semi-annual reports submitted for the Antidumping Committee’s review and 

discussion. The semi-annual reports for the second half of 2008 were issued in document series 

“G/ADP/N/180/...,” and the semi-annual reports for the first half of 2009 were issued in document series 

“G/ADP/N/188/...”. At its May and October 2009 meetings, the Committee reviewed Members’ 

notifications of preliminary and final actions pursuant to Article 16.4 of the Antidumping Agreement. 

China Transitional Review: At the October 2009 meeting, the Antidumping Committee undertook, 

pursuant to the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China, its eighth annual 

Transitional Review with respect to China’s implementation of the Antidumping Agreement. The United 

States and Japan presented written questions to China with respect to China’s antidumping laws and 
II. The World Trade Organization | 51 

practices. China orally provided information in response to the questions posed by the United States and 

Japan. 

Improved Timeliness and Completeness of Notifications: In response to a request from the Chair of the 

Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB), the Chair of the Antidumping Practices Committee held discussions 

with Members on ways to improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information 

flows on trade measures. These discussions focused on problematic notification areas such as how to 

encourage longstanding nonnotifiers to submit notifications, how to enhance the quality of the submitted 

data, how to streamline the reporting process, and what decisions should be adopted by the Committee to 

achieve such goals. At its May 2009 regular meeting, the Committee agreed that subsequent to each 

request setting the deadline for semi-annual reports, the Secretariat should circulate a document 

reminding Members of the deadline. It was also agreed that the Chair should send letters, as needed, to 

those Members whose reports were not received by such deadlines. At its October 2009 meeting, the 

Committee adopted three decisions to enhance transparency and streamline the reporting process. The 

first was the adoption of a "one-time notification format" for notifications under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of 

the Agreement to assist those Members that have not established investigating authorities and accordingly 

have never taken any antidumping actions to fulfill their notification obligations. The second was the 

adoption of the electronic submission of all notifications submitted to the Committee. The third was the 

introduction of an additional paragraph to the minimum information format encouraging Members to 

attach, in an electronic form and in their original language, publicly available documents containing the 

relevant decisions made by the competent authorities. The Committee had also agreed to report back to 

the Chair of the TPRB on the decisions adopted by the Committee to enhance transparency and improve 

timeliness and completeness of notifications. 

Working Group on Implementation: The Working Group held meetings in May and October 2009. 

Beginning in 2003, the Working Group has held discussions on several agreed topics: (1) export prices to 

third countries vs. constructed value under Article 2.2 of the Antidumping Agreement; (2) foreign 

exchange fluctuations under Article 2.4.1; (3) conduct of verifications under Article 6.7; (4) judicial, 

arbitral or administrative reviews under Article 13; and (5) price undercutting by dumped imports. The 

discussions in the Working Group on these topics have focused on submissions by Members describing 

their own practices, including past submissions by the United States on all four topics. In 2009, Egypt 

presented two papers for discussion on export prices to third countries versus constructed normal value 

and the determination of significant price undercutting. Several Members, including the United States, 

posed questions to Egypt on the issues presented in its papers. Egypt and Korea also proposed new topics 

for discussion in future meetings of the Group, including: (1) constructed export prices; (2) other known 

causes of injury; (3) threat of material injury; (4) accuracy and adequacy of evidence to justify the 

initiation of an investigation; and (5) the determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and injury in sunset reviews. 

Informal Group on Anticircumvention: In 2009, the Informal Group held meetings in May and October. 

There were no new papers submitted for discussion in 2009. Members did not actively engage in 

discussions on what constitutes circumvention, what is being done by Members confronted with what 

they consider to be circumvention, or to what extent circumvention can be dealt with under the relevant 

WTO rules. Nevertheless, it was agreed that the Informal Group should continue to meet in the future to 

provide a forum to discuss such topics, as Members deem appropriate. 

Prospects for 2010

Work will proceed in 2010 on the areas that the Antidumping Committee, the Working Group and the 

Informal Group addressed this past year. The Antidumping Committee will pursue its review of 

Members’ notifications of antidumping legislation, and Members will continue to have the opportunity to 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 52 

 

submit additional questions concerning previously reviewed notifications. This ongoing review process 

in the Antidumping Committee is important for ensuring that Members’ antidumping laws are properly 

drafted and implemented, thereby contributing to a well-functioning, rules-based trading system. Since 

notifications of antidumping legislation are not restricted documents, U.S. exporters will continue to 

enjoy access to information about the antidumping laws of other Members that should assist them in 

better understanding the operation of such laws, and in taking them into account in commercial planning. 

The preparation by Members and review in the Antidumping Committee of semi-annual reports and 

reports of preliminary and final antidumping actions will also continue in 2010. The semi-annual reports 

are accessible to the general public from the WTO website, in keeping with the objectives of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act. (Information on accessing WTO notifications is included in Annex II.) This 

transparency promotes improved public knowledge and appreciation of the trends in and focus of all 

WTO Members’ antidumping actions. 

Discussions in the Working Group on Implementation will continue to play an important role, as more 

Members enact antidumping laws and begin to apply them. There has been a sharp and widespread 

interest in clarifying the many complex provisions of the Antidumping Agreement. Tackling these issues 

in a serious manner will require the involvement of the Working Group, which is the forum best suited to 

provide the necessary technical and administrative expertise. For these reasons, the United States will 

continue to use the Working Group to learn in greater detail about other Members’ administration of their 

antidumping laws, especially as that forum provides opportunities to discuss not only the laws as written, 

but also the operational practices that Members employ to implement them. In 2010, the Working Group 

will continue its discussion of topics that it has been discussing for several years: (1) export prices to third 

countries vs. constructed value under Article 2.2 of the Antidumping Agreement; (2) foreign exchange 

fluctuations under Article 2.4.1.; and (3) the determination of significant price undercutting by dumped 

imports. In addition, the Group will also undertake discussion of the following newly proposed topics: 

(1) constructed export prices; (2) other known causes of injury; (3) threat of material injury; (4) accuracy 

and adequacy of evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation; and (5) the determination of the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in sunset reviews. 

The work of the Informal Group on Anticircumvention will also continue in 2010, according to the 

framework for discussion on which Members agreed. However, given the focus on anticircumvention 

issues in the WTO Rules negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda, it is possible that there may 

be relatively little activity on these issues in the Informal Group in 2010. 

10. Committee on Import Licensing 

Status

The Committee on Import Licensing (the Import Licensing Committee) was established to administer the 

Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Import Licensing Agreement) and to monitor compliance 

with the mutually agreed rules for the application of these widely used measures set out in the Agreement. 

The Import Licensing Committee normally meets twice a year to review information on import licensing 

requirements submitted by WTO Members in accordance with the obligations set out in the Agreement. 

The Committee also receives questions from Members on the licensing regimes of other Members, 

whether or not these regimes have been notified to the Committee. The Committee meetings also address 

specific observations and complaints concerning Members’ licensing systems. These reviews are not 

intended to substitute for dispute settlement procedures; rather, they offer Members an opportunity to 

focus multilateral attention on licensing measures and procedures that they find problematic, to receive 
II. The World Trade Organization | 53 

information on specific issues and to clarify problems, and possibly to resolve issues before they become 

disputes. 

Since the accession of China to the WTO in December 2001, the Committee also has conducted an annual 

review of China’s compliance with accession commitments in the area of import licensing as part of the 

Transitional Review Mechanism (TRM) provided for in China’s Protocol of Accession. China’s 2009 

review concerning its import licensing procedures was conducted at the October meeting of the 

Committee and the report transmitted to the December 2009 General Council as part of China’s overall 

Eighth Transitional Review. 

Background: The Import Licensing Agreement sets out rules for all Members that use import licensing 

systems to regulate their trade, and includes guidelines for what constitutes a fair and non-discriminatory 

application of such procedures. Its provisions are intended to set a standard for Members’ import 

licensing regimes that offer protection from unreasonable requirements or delays associated with its 

application. These obligations are intended to ensure that the use of import licensing procedures does not 

create additional barriers to trade beyond the policy measures implemented through licensing (the Import 

Licensing Agreement’s provisions discipline licensing procedures). The Agreement does not directly 

address the WTO consistency of the underlying measures, and Members are required to have WTO 

justification for any licensing requirements established. The notification requirements and the system of 

regular Committee reviews established by the Agreement seek to increase the transparency and 

predictability of Members’ licensing regimes. 

The Agreement covers both “automatic” licensing systems, which are intended only to monitor imports, 

not regulate them, and “non-automatic” licensing systems, under which certain conditions must be met 

before a license is issued. Governments often use non-automatic licensing to administer import 

restrictions such as quotas and tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), or to administer safety or other requirements 

(e.g., for hazardous goods, armaments, antiquities, etc.). Requirements for permission to import that act 

like import licenses, such as certification of standards and sanitary and technical regulations, are also 

subject to the rules of the Import Licensing Agreement. 

Major Issues in 2009

At its meetings in April and October 2009, the Import Licensing Committee reviewed 110 new 

submissions from 46 Members,14 including initial or revised notifications, completed questionnaires on 

procedures, and questions and replies to questions. This count exceeded the number of notifications, 

questions, and replies to questions submitted to the Committee meetings for review during 2008 by nearly 

40 percent due to a large number of questions and replies, as well as a large number of annual replies to 

the Licensing Procedures Questionnaire. No additional Members made notifications to the Committee for 

review at either of the two meetings, however, so the same 21 of 153 Committee Members have never 

submitted a notification to the Committee, i.e., just under 14 percent.15 The Chairman and some 

 

14The Members submitting notifications during 2009 were: Albania; Argentina; Brazil; Cameroon; Canada; Chile; 

China, Colombia; Costa Rica; Croatia; Cuba; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; European Communities; Ghana; 

Grenada; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Macao, China; Former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia; Madagascar; Mauritius; Morocco; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; the Philippines; Qatar; Senegal; 

Singapore; Suriname; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; Ukraine; the United States; and 

Uruguay.

15 The Members that have never submitted a notification to this Committee are Angola, Belize, Botswana, 

Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, 

Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Tonga, 

and Vietnam. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 54 

 

Committee Members continued to express concern that even participating Members are not submitting 

notifications with the frequency required by the Import Licensing Agreement. The Committee Chairman 

also reminded Members that notifications were required, even if only to report that no import licensing 

system existed, and that the WTO Secretariat was prepared to assist Members in developing their 

submissions. He noted that he had addressed letters to each one of the Members of the Committee, 

requesting a special effort to submit responses to the Import Licensing Questionnaire as required by 

Article 7.3 of the Agreement. Only 39 Members had responded to this request. He encouraged Members 

to renew their efforts towards full and complete compliance with notification obligations. 

The United States remained one of the most active members of the Import Licensing Committee, using 

the forum to gather information and to discuss import licensing measures applied to its trade by other 

Members. U.S. submissions to the Committee in 2009 included its response to the Questionnaire 

(G/LIC/N/3/USA/6), earlier notification of changes to U.S. import licensing systems 

(G/LIC/N/2/USA/2/Add.1), and copies of the legislation authorizing U.S. licensing systems 

(G/LIC/N/1/USA/5). The U.S. representative brought a number of new issues to the Committee’s 

attention as well as continuing to press Committee Members on issues where satisfactory information has 

not yet been provided. In addition to presentations made by the United States at the Committee meetings, 

U.S. questions were submitted in writing to Argentina, India, Indonesia, and Turkey. 

Argentina: The United States again expressed concern about Argentina’s progressive expansion of 

restrictive licensing requirements on imports and the trade distortive effects these measures were having 

on U.S. exports. Argentina had neither adequately notified nor explained the reasons for these measures. 

In particular, the excessive delay (up to nearly 120 days) in processing the licensing applications was 

causing great concern. The United States questioned the specific underlying measure Argentina was 

implementing through this non-automatic import licensing regime, and sought information on what 

remedies Argentina could provide in these situations. Argentina was urged to promptly respond to the 

written questions submitted on these issues previously, and at this meeting of the Committee. Peru, in 

extensive interventions, noted that this “temporary” licensing mechanism was now in place over two 

years and had been expanded to a number of new products. When would it be removed? Peru also noted 

that Argentina’s claim that the processing of licenses took less than 60 days was not consistent with the 

experience of its exporters and greatly exceeded the timeframe laid down in the WTO Agreement on 

Import Licensing Measures for such measures. The concerns expressed by the United States and Peru 

were echoed and elaborated upon by Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, and Thailand. 

Argentina’s responses indicate that it applies the requirements to monitor sensitive imports, protect 

domestic industries during the global economic crisis, and verify compliance with technical regulations. 

Argentina denied that the time for processing applications exceeded that established by the WTO 

Agreement, notwithstanding the statements by several delegations that it did, and gave no indication of 

when the requirements might be removed. 

Indonesia: The United States continued questioning Indonesia on the application of import registration 

and licensing requirements on a growing number of imported goods, currently covering up to $2 billion in 

trade. Indonesia responded that these requirements, contained in Regulation (Decree) 56 – 2008, were not 

import licensing requirements, but acknowledged that the applications for permission to import had, on at 

least 200 occasions, been rejected. Canada, the European Union, and Thailand (another ASEAN 

member) made similar interventions, and referred to written questions that required response. The United 

States again sought submission of the text of Decree 56 for the Committee's review and clarification of 

the reasons for overlapping separate licensing requirements applied to textile products also covered by 

Decree 56. The United States also expanded its earlier request for information from Indonesia on its 

licensing requirements for imports of textiles, iron and steel products, and sugar. In the latter case, 

imports of sugar were permitted only if the importer could demonstrate a sufficient purchase of domestic 
II. The World Trade Organization | 55 

Indonesian sugar. In an extensive response, Indonesia indicated that the requirements contained in 

Decree 56 were necessary to prevent smuggling and fraud and to ensure conformity with technical 

regulations. The registration was good for two years, and created a list of designated importers whose 

imports were directed to five specific Indonesian ports. Indonesia confirmed that written responses to any 

U.S. questions submitted would be prepared. 

India: The United States renewed its questions to India concerning special import licensing regime for 

non-insecticidal boric acid that enforces requirements applied to imports and that are not in place for 

domestic producers of non-insecticidal boric acid, i.e., only importers were required to obtain an activity 

license for trade in boric acid for insecticide production, whether or not this was the designated end use. 

India claimed the license was automatic, but also reported that discretion was exercised in granting the 

quantity that could be imported based upon the government’s recommendation as well as on the quantity 

imported by the applicant during the preceding five years. India was urged to improve and clarify its 

notification of these measures, with product-specific information and a clear indication of how the 

requirements were applied automatically. The United States also recalled concerns expressed in earlier 

Committee meetings concerning burdensome licensing restrictions on imports of refurbished computer 

parts and other remanufactured goods. 

Brazil: The United States noted its continuing concern about Brazil’s system of quotas and non-automatic 

licensing for imports of certain lithium compounds, i.e., lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide. 

Rejecting Brazil’s contention that the restrictions were necessary for regulation of nuclear materials, the 

United States reiterated that these were common compounds, used in ordinary manufacturing, and that 

Brazil’s restrictions were burdensome and unjustified, and had not been notified to the Committee. Brazil 

responded that licenses for importation of lithium compounds were available through its automated 

customs system. The most recent responses to U.S. questions were not changed from previous replies. 

Both the United States and China again noted that the licensing requirements on toys appeared to be 

administered in a manner inconsistent with the Agreement, and causing severe delays in customs 

clearance. Brazil offered no additional information on the licensing requirements it applied to toy 

imports, but promised written responses to any follow-up questions. 

Vietnam: The United States noted that Vietnam had not notified its import licensing systems since 

providing a draft notification during its accession process. Noting the Circular issued at the end of 2008 

establishing automatic import licensing requirements for a broad range of products, the United States 

urged Vietnam to notify these and other import licensing measures, and to update its earlier responses to 

the Annual Questionnaire on Import Licensing. Vietnam took note of these concerns, but made no 

promises about notification. 

Informal Meeting of the Committee on the Status of Notifications 

In March, the Committee met in informal session to discuss ways to improve the timeliness and 

completeness of notifications by Committee Members. Several delegations, including the United States, 

made specific suggestions for improvement in this area, which were circulated to attendees. The United 

States, supported by Australia, asked the Committee Chairperson for an update on the results of these 

discussions and what further steps might be taken to discuss the issue further. The Committee 

Chairperson, noting the continuing interest of Members as expressed at each Committee meeting, 

indicated willingness to continue the discussion in the Committee on ways and means to improve the 

timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information flows, in an informal mode or under 

an item in the agenda of the next formal meeting. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 56 

 

Eighth Transitional Review of the Accession of the People’s Republic of China 

At its October meeting, the Committee conducted its eighth annual Transitional Review of China’s 

implementation of its WTO accession commitments in the area of import licensing procedures. This year, 

the United States and other delegations did not raise any questions when the Committee conducted the 

review. As has become customary, China provided the data required for the Transitional Review to the 

Secretariat the day before the Committee met, and it was not circulated to Members in time for review at 

this meeting. 

Prospects for 2010

The administration of import licensing continues to be a significant topic of discussion in the context of 

the DDA, as well as in the day-to-day implementation of current obligations. The use of such measures to 

monitor and to regulate imports clearly has increased as a result of the global economic crisis. Under 

these circumstances, it becomes more critical that Members increase their efforts to provide transparency, 

use import licensing procedures properly, and ensure that licensing procedures do not, in themselves, 

restrict imports in a manner not consistent with WTO provisions. Licensing continues to be a factor in 

the administration of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) and the application of safeguard measures, technical 

regulations, and sanitary/phytosanitary requirements applied to imports as well. The proliferation of 

automatic licensing requirements raises additional concerns, as many such requirements appear to be 

administered in a manner that restricts trade. The Import Licensing Committee will continue to be the 

point of first multilateral contact in the WTO for Members with complaints or questions on the licensing 

regimes of other Members and as a forum for discussion and review. 

The Committee will continue discussions to encourage enhanced compliance with the notification and 

other transparency requirements of the Import Licensing Agreement, with renewed focus on securing 

timely revisions of notifications and questionnaires, and timely responses to written questions, as required 

by the Agreement. 

11. Committee on Safeguards 

Status

The Committee on Safeguards (the Safeguards Committee) was established to administer the WTO 

Agreement on Safeguards (the Safeguards Agreement). The Safeguards Agreement establishes rules for 

the application of safeguard measures as provided in Article XIX of GATT 1994. Effective safeguards 

rules are important to the viability and integrity of the multilateral trading system. The availability of a 

safeguards mechanism gives WTO Members the assurance that they can act quickly to help industries 

adjust to import surges, providing them with flexibility they would not otherwise have to open their 

markets to international competition. At the same time, WTO safeguard rules ensure that such actions are 

of limited duration and are gradually less restrictive over time. 

The Safeguards Agreement incorporates into WTO rules many of the concepts embodied in U.S. 

safeguards law (section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended). Among its key provisions, the 

Safeguards Agreement: requires a transparent, public process for making injury determinations; sets out 

clearer definitions of the criteria for injury determinations; requires that safeguard measures be steadily 

liberalized over their duration; establishes maximum periods for safeguard actions; requires a review no 

later than the mid-term of any measure with a duration exceeding three years; allows safeguard actions to 

be taken for three years, without the requirement of compensation or the possibility of retaliation; and 
II. The World Trade Organization | 57 

prohibits so-called “grey area” measures, such as voluntary restraint agreements and orderly marketing 

agreements. 

The Safeguards Agreement requires Members to notify the Safeguards Committee of their laws, 

regulations, and administrative procedures relating to safeguard measures. It also requires Members to 

notify the Safeguards Committee of various safeguards actions, such as: (1) the initiation of an 

investigatory process; (2) a finding by a Member’s investigating authority of serious injury or threat 

thereof caused by increased imports; (3) the taking of a decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure; 

and (4) the proposed application of a provisional safeguard measure. 

Major Issues in 2009 

During its two regular meetings in May and October 2009, the Safeguards Committee continued its 

review of Members’ laws, regulations, and administrative procedures, based on notifications required 

under Article 12.6 of the Safeguards Agreement. The Committee reviewed the national legislation of 

Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Chinese Taipei, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Israel, Panama, 

Norway, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Ukraine. 

The Safeguards Committee reviewed Article 12.1(a) notifications regarding the initiation of a safeguard 

investigatory process relating to serious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it, or the initiation of a 

review process relating to the extension of an existing measure, from the following Members: Brazil on 

desiccated coconut; Chile on powdered milk and gouda cheese; Croatia on semi-hard cheese and cheese 

substitutes; Dominican Republic on glass containers; India on acrylic fiber, coated paper/paperboard, 

dimethoate technical, hot-rolled coils/sheets/strips, linear alkyl benzene, oxo alcohols, plain particle 

board, phthalic anhydride, sodium hydroxide, uncoated paper/copy paper, and unwrought 

aluminum/aluminum waste/scraps; Indonesia on wire nails; Israel on steel rebars; Jordan on white cement 

and ceramic tiles; Kyrgyz Republic on wheat flour and white sugar; Morocco on ceramic tiles and 

polyvinyl chloride; Peru on cotton yarn; the Philippines on figured glass, float glass, and steel angle bars; 

Turkey on footwear, matches, motorcycles, salt, steam smoothing irons, and vacuum cleaners; Ukraine on 

liquid chlorine, matches, and sheet glass; and Vietnam on float glass. 

The Safeguards Committee reviewed Article 12.1(b) notifications, regarding a finding of serious injury or 

threat thereof caused by increased imports from the following Members: Argentina on compact discsrecordables; India on dimethoate technical, plain particle board, phthalic anhydride, and unwrought 

aluminum, aluminum waste and scraps; Indonesia on dextrose monohydrate; Jordan on ceramic tiles; 

Kyrgyz Republic on wheat flour; Morocco on ceramic tiles; Panama on PVC films; and the Philippines 

on steel angle bars. 

The Safeguards Committee reviewed Article 12.1(c) notifications regarding a decision to apply or extend 

a safeguard measure from the following Members: Argentina on compact discs-recordables; India on 

dimethoate technical and phthalic anhydride; Indonesia on dextrose monohydrate and ceramic tableware; 

Jordan on ceramic tiles; Morocco on ceramic tiles; Panama on PVC films; and the Philippines on steel 

angle bars, ceramic floor and wall tiles, and float glass. 

 

The Safeguards Committee reviewed Article 12.4 notifications regarding the application of a provisional 

safeguard measure from the following Members: Croatia on semi-hard cheese and cheese substitutes; 

India on acrylic fiber, coated paper paperboard, hot-rolled coils/sheets/strips, plain particle board, phthalic 

anhydride, dimethoate technical, and unwrought aluminum/aluminum waste/scraps; Israel on steel rebars; 

Kyrgyz Republic on wheat flour; the Philippines on steel angle bars; and Turkey on footwear, matches 

motorcycles, salt, steam smoothing irons, and vacuum cleaners. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 58 

 

The Safeguards Committee received notifications of the termination of a safeguard investigation with no 

definitive safeguard measure imposed, or the expiration or termination of a definitive safeguard measure, 

from the following Members: Brazil on compact discs-recordables and DVD recordables; Croatia on 

cheese substitutes (the measure on semi-hard cheese remains in place); India on coated paper/paper board, 

hot-rolled coils/sheets/strips, linear alkyl benzene, oxo alcohols, plain particle board, uncoated paper/copy 

paper, and unwrought aluminum; and Jordan on white cement. 

China Transitional Review: At the October 2009 meeting, the Safeguards Committee undertook its eighth 

annual Transitional Review with respect to China’s implementation of the Safeguards Agreement. China 

reported no new safeguard legislation, and confirmed that it had taken no safeguard actions during the 

past year. 

Improved Content and Timeliness of Notifications: In response to a request from the Chair of the Trade 

Policy Review Body (TPRB), the Chair of the Committee on Safeguards held discussions and several 

informal consultations with Members throughout 2009 on ways to improve the content and timeliness of 

notifications to the WTO Secretariat of safeguard actions by Members. Discussions focused on how to 

encourage Members to improve the quality and timeliness of the information submitted in their 

notifications so as to permit affected Members and their industries to represent effectively their interests 

in such proceedings. At the same time, it was recognized that any new reporting formats must not create 

an unreasonable reporting burden on the Member taking a safeguard action. 

At its October 2009 meeting, the Committee adopted revised formats for the notification of the initiation 

of an investigation relating to serious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it, notification upon 

making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, notification upon taking 

a decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure, and notification before taking a provisional safeguard 

measure. The Committee also adopted two entirely new formats: one identifying the information to be 

provided upon the initiation of a review regarding the extension of a safeguard measure, and the other 

identifying the information to be provided upon cessation of a safeguard measure. The Committee also 

adopted a proposal to recommend that the decisions taken by authorities underlying the notifications be 

provided electronically to the Secretariat to facilitate access to the information by Members. The 

Committee had agreed to report back to the Chair of the TPRB on the decisions adopted by the 

Committee to enhance transparency and improve the content and timeliness of notifications. 

Prospects for 2010 

The Safeguards Committee’s work in 2010 will continue to focus on the review of safeguard actions that 

have been notified to the Committee and on the review of notifications of any new or amended safeguards 

legislation. 

12. Working Party on State Trading Enterprises 

Status 

Article XVII of the GATT 1994 requires Members, inter alia, to ensure that state trading enterprises 

(STEs), as defined in that Article, act in a manner consistent with the general principle of nondiscriminatory treatment, make purchases or sales solely in accordance with commercial considerations, 

and abide by other GATT disciplines. The Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the 

GATT 1994 (the Article XVII Understanding) defines a state trading enterprise more narrowly for the 

purposes of providing a notification that is required under the Understanding. Members must notify the 

Working Party of enterprises in their respective territories that meet this definition, whether or not such 
II. The World Trade Organization | 59 

enterprises have imported or exported goods. Members are required to submit new and full notifications 

to the Working Party for review every two years. 

The Working Party on State Trading Enterprises (WP-STE) was established in 1995 to review, inter alia, 

Member notifications of STES and the coverage of STES that are notified, and to develop an illustrative 

list of relationships between Members and their STES and the kinds of activities engaged in by these 

enterprises. 

Major Issues in 2009

The WP-STE held one formal meeting in October, 2009, at which STE notifications were reviewed from: 

Colombia, Croatia, the European Communities, Honduras, Croatia, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of 

Korea, Liechtenstein, Mozambique, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, and Chinese Taipei. During 

the meeting, Australia and Turkey posed questions relating to Indonesia's notifications, as well as Korea’s 

notifications. Australia also questioned Japan concerning its notification. The United States asked 

questions on the notifications of Indonesia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. Additionally, Australia 

requested that India and Norway inform the Working Party of when they expected to submit outstanding 

notifications in order to allow Members to review their state trading enterprises. 

The WP-STE also focused its attention on Member compliance with the notification obligation. The 

Working Party held informal consultations in April on ways to improve the timeliness and completeness 

of notification obligations. Members agreed to building on current practices in the Working Party to seek 

to improve Members’ performance in meeting the notification obligations. The agreed actions included: 

preparation by the Secretariat of a table recording all notifications made to the Working Party since 1995 

(to be updated on a regular basis, the most recent of which is attached as an Annex to this report); 

transmittal of reminders to Members once the notification deadline has passed (in addition to reminders 

currently being sent prior to the deadline), offers of support from the Secretariat to provide assistance in 

completing the notifications and reminders that a nil notification should also be submitted; circulation of a 

list of Members that have submitted notifications in the calendar year; offers of technical assistance 

around the time of the regular meeting of the Working Party to coincide with possible Capital-based 

attendance (in addition to assistance being available from the Secretariat at any time); and transmittal of 

reminders to delegations on a regular basis to submit questions on notifications well before the regular 

meeting. 

Prospects for 2010 

The WP-STE is scheduled to meet in October, 2010. The WP-STE will continue its review of new 

notifications and its examination of how to improve Member compliance with STE notification 

obligations to enhance transparency of STES. 

G. Council on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 

Status 

The WTO Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Council) monitors 

implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS 

Agreement), provides a forum in which WTO Members can consult on intellectual property matters, and 

carries out the specific responsibilities assigned to the Council in the TRIPS Agreement. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 60 

 

The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards of protection for copyrights and related rights, 

trademarks, geographical indications (GIs), industrial designs, patents, integrated circuit layout designs, 

and undisclosed information. The TRIPS Agreement also establishes minimum standards for the 

enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) through civil actions for infringement, actions at the 

border and, at least in regard to copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting, in criminal actions. The 

TRIPS Agreement is important to U.S. interests and has yielded significant benefits for U.S. industries 

and individuals, from those engaged in the pharmaceutical, agricultural chemical, and biotechnology 

industries to those producing motion pictures, sound recordings, software, books, magazines, and 

consumer goods. 

Developed country Members were required to fully implement the obligations of the TRIPS Agreement 

by January 1, 1996, and developing country Members generally had to achieve full implementation by 

January 1, 2000. Least developed country (LDC) Members have had their deadline for full 

implementation of the TRIPS Agreement extended to July 1, 2013, as part of a package that also requires 

them to provide information on their priority needs for technical assistance in order to facilitate TRIPS 

Agreement implementation. This action is without prejudice to the existing extension, based on a 

proposal made by the United States at the Doha Ministerial Conference, of the transition period for LDC 

Members to implement or apply Sections 5 and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to 

pharmaceutical products, or to enforce rights with respect to such products, until January 1, 2016. In 

2002, the WTO General Council, on the recommendation of the TRIPS Council, similarly waived until 

2016 the obligation for LDC Members to provide exclusive marketing rights for certain pharmaceutical 

products if those Members did not provide product patent protection for pharmaceutical inventions. 

Major Issues in 2009

In 2009, the TRIPS Council held three formal meetings. In addition to its continued work reviewing the 

implementation of the Agreement, the TRIPS Council’s activities in 2009 focused on the relationship of 

the TRIPS Agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and on ongoing consideration of issues 

addressed in the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public 

Health. Some Members, including the United States, also sought to have the TRIPS Council continue to 

examine issues related to the enforcement provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. 

Review of Developing Country Members’ TRIPS Implementation: During 2009, the TRIPS Council 

continued to review developing country Members’ and newly acceded Members’ implementation of the 

TRIPS Agreement, and to provide assistance to developing country Members in implementing the 

Agreement. The United States continued to press for full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by 

developing country Members, and participated actively during the reviews of legislation by highlighting 

specific concerns regarding individual Member’s implementation of the Agreement’s obligations, 

particularly with regard to China’s efforts. 

The Transitional Review Mechanism under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s 

Republic of China has been an important means to raise concerns about China’s implementation of the 

TRIPS Agreement. This process has been instrumental in helping to understand the levels of protection 

of IPRs in China and provides a forum for addressing the concerns of U.S. interests. The United States 

has been active in seeking answers to questions on a wide range of intellectual property matters and in 

raising concerns about enforcement of IPRs. 

During 2009, the TRIPS Council undertook a review of the implementing legislation of Ukraine and 

Tonga, in addition to the above-referenced review of China. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 61 

Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines: The August 30, 2003 solution (the General Council 

Decision on “Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and 

Public Health”, in light of the statement read out by the General Council Chairperson) continues to apply 

to each Member until the formal amendment to the TRIPS Agreement replacing its provisions takes effect 

for that Member. The amendment text adopted by the General Council in December 2005 and the 

statement by the Chairperson preserve all substantive aspects of the August 30, 2003 solution and do not 

alter the substance of the previously agreed to solution. The United States was the first Member to submit 

its acceptance of the amendment to the WTO. At the end of 2009, a total of 26 Members had accepted 

the amendment, which will enter into force for those Members that have accepted it upon its acceptance 

by two-thirds of the membership of the WTO. At its October 2009 meeting, the TRIPS Council reviewed 

implementation of the August 30, 2003 solution. Several Members commented on the importance of the 

solution, and the Council agreed to hold an informal consultation to share experiences on implementing 

the amendment. Pursuant to a December 2009 Decision of the WTO General Council, the period in 

which Members may accept the amendment remains open until December 31, 2011. 

TRIPS-related WTO Dispute Settlement Cases: In April 2007, the United States initiated WTO dispute 

settlement proceedings over deficiencies in China’s legal regime for the protection and enforcement of 

IPRs by requesting consultations with China. On September 25, 2007, the WTO Dispute Settlement 

Body (DSB) established a panel to consider the dispute. 

The panel circulated its report on January 26, 2009. The panel found that China's denial of copyright 

protection to works that do not meet China’s content review standards is inconsistent with the TRIPS 

Agreement. The panel also found it inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement for China to provide for 

simple removal of an infringing trademark as the only precondition for the sale at public auction of 

counterfeit goods seized by Chinese customs authorities. 

With respect to the U.S. claim regarding thresholds in China’s law that must be met in order for certain 

acts of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy to be subject to criminal procedures and penalties, 

the panel clarified that China must provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied to willful 

trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale. The panel agreed with the United 

States that Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement requires China not to set its thresholds for prosecution of 

piracy and counterfeiting so high as to ignore the realities of the commercial marketplace. The Panel did 

find, however, that it needed more evidence in order to decide whether the actual thresholds for 

prosecution in China’s criminal law are so high as to allow commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy to 

occur without the possibility of criminal prosecution. 

The DSB adopted the panel report on March 20, 2009. On April 15, 2009, China notified the DSB that 

China intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and stated it 

would need a reasonable period of time for implementation. On June 29, 2009, the United States and 

China notified the DSB that they had agreed on a one-year period of time for implementation, to end on 

March 20, 2010. 

During 2009, the United States continued to monitor EU compliance with a 2005 ruling of the WTO 

Dispute Settlement Body that the EU’s regulation on food-related GIs is inconsistent with the EU’s 

obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the GATT 1994. The United States has raised certain 

questions and concerns with regard to the revised EU regulation and its compliance with the DSB 

findings and recommendations, and continues to monitor implementation in this dispute. 

 

The United States continues to monitor WTO Members’ implementation of their TRIPS Agreement 

obligations and will consider the further use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism as appropriate. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 62 

 

Geographical Indications: The Doha Declaration directed the TRIPS Council to discuss “issues related to 

extension” of the level of protection provided under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to GIs for 

products other than wines and spirits, and to report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) by the 

end of 2002 for appropriate action. Because no consensus could be reached in the TRIPS Council on how 

the Chairperson should report to the TNC on the issues related to the extension of Article 23-level 

protection to GIs for products other than wines and spirits, and in light of the strong divergence of 

positions on the way forward on GIs and other implementation issues, the TNC Chairperson closed the 

discussion by saying he would consult further with Members. At the December 2005 Hong Kong 

Ministerial Conference, the Ministers directed the Director-General to continue his consultative process 

on all outstanding implementation issues, including on extension of Article 23-level protection to GIs for 

products other than wines and spirits. 

Throughout 2009, and consistent with this mandate, the Director-General held a number of such 

consultations with Members on the issue of extension. During these consultations, the United States and 

many like-minded Members maintained the position that the demandeurs had not established that the 

protection provided GIs for products other than wines and spirits was inadequate, and thus proposals for 

expanding GI protection were unwarranted. The United States and other Members noted that the 

administrative costs and burdens of proposals to expand protection would be considerable for those 

Members that did not have a longstanding statutory regime for the protection of GIs, that the benefits 

accruing to those few Members that have longstanding statutory regimes for the protection of GIs would 

represent a windfall, and that other Members with few or no GIs would receive no counterbalancing 

benefits. While willing to continue the dialog in the TRIPS Council, the United States believes that 

discussion of the issues has been exhaustive and that no consensus has emerged with regard to extension 

of Article 23-level protection to products other than wines and spirits. The United States and other 

Members have also steadfastly resisted efforts by some Members to obtain new GI protections in the 

WTO agriculture negotiations. 

Review of Article 27.3(b), Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore: As called for in the TRIPS Agreement, 

the TRIPS Council initiated a review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement (permitting Members to 

except from patentability plants and animals and biological processes used for the production of plants 

and animals). The Doha Declaration directs the TRIPS Council, in pursuing its work program under the 

review of Article 27.3(b), to examine, inter alia, the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the 

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. 

Consideration of this set of issues also continues to be guided by the direction of Ministers in the Hong 

Kong Declaration, that all implementation issues (including the relationship of the TRIPS Agreement and 

the CBD) should be the subject of consultations facilitated by the WTO Director-General. Furthermore, 

Ministers agreed that work would continue in the TRIPS Council on this issue. 

A number of developing country Members continue to advocate for amending the patent provisions of the 

TRIPS Agreement to require disclosure of the source of the genetic resource or traditional knowledge, as 

well as evidence of prior informed consent to obtain the genetic resource and adequate benefit sharing 

with the custodian community or country of the genetic resource in order to obtain a patent. In 2006, a 

group of developing country Members submitted draft text for such an amendment to the TRIPS 

Agreement. There is, however, no consensus in the TRIPS Council that an amendment should be 

pursued. 

Throughout 2009, the Director-General held a number of consultations with Members on this issue. The 

United States, with support from other Members, continues to maintain that there is no conflict between 

the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, that an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement is neither necessary nor 
II. The World Trade Organization | 63 

appropriate, and that shared objectives with respect to genetic resources and traditional knowledge (such 

as prior informed consent and effective access and benefit-sharing arrangements) can best be achieved 

through mechanisms outside of the patent system. The United States has also advocated for a discussion 

in the TRIPS Council that is fact-based and focused on national experiences in areas such as access and 

benefit-sharing and prior informed consent. 

Technical Cooperation and Capacity Building: As in each past year, the United States and other 

Members provided reports on their activities in connection with technical cooperation and capacity 

building (see IP/C/W/517/Add.3). While no LDC Members submitted information on their priority needs 

with regard to technical cooperation related to their implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in 2009, the 

reports of technical cooperation and capacity building activities were discussed in the TRIPS Council as 

well as in informal consultations.

Implementation of Article 66.2: Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires developed country 

Members to provide incentives for enterprises and institutions in their territories to promote and 

encourage technology transfer to least-developed country Members in order to enable them to create a 

sound and viable technological base. This provision was reaffirmed in the Doha Decision on 

Implementation-related Issues and Concerns and the TRIPS Council was directed to put in place a 

mechanism for ensuring monitoring and full implementation of the obligation. Developed country 

Members are required to provide detailed reports every third year, with annual updates, on these 

incentives. In October 2009, the United States provided an updated report on specific U.S. government 

institutions and incentives, as required. 

Prospects for 2010 

In 2010, the TRIPS Council will continue to focus on its built-in agenda and the additional mandates 

established in the Doha Declaration, including issues related to the extension of Article 23-level 

protection for GIs for products other than wines and spirits, on the relationship between the TRIPS 

Agreement and the CBD, and on traditional knowledge and folklore, as well as other relevant new 

developments. 

U.S. objectives for 2010 continue to be to: 

● resolve differences through consultations and use of dispute settlement procedures, where 

 appropriate; 

● continue efforts to ensure that developing country Members fully implement the TRIPS 

Agreement; 

● engage in constructive dialogue regarding the technical assistance and capacity-related needs of 

developing countries in connection with TRIPS Agreement implementation; 

● continue to encourage a fact-based discussion within the TRIPS Council on the enforcement 

provisions of the TRIPS Agreement; and 

● ensure that provisions of the TRIPS Agreement are not weakened. 

H. Council for Trade in Services 

Status 

The General Agreement for Trade in Services (GATS) is the first multilateral, legally enforceable 

agreement covering trade in services, and investment in the services sector. It is designed to reduce or 

eliminate governmental measures that prevent services from being freely supplied across national borders 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 64 

 

or that discriminate against locally established services firms with foreign ownership. The GATS 

provides a legal framework for addressing barriers to trade and investment in services. It includes 

specific commitments by WTO Members to restrict their use of those barriers and provides a forum for 

further negotiations to open services markets around the world. These commitments are contained in 

Member schedules, similar to the Member schedules for tariffs. 

The Council for Trade in Services (CTS) oversees implementation of the GATS and reports to the 

General Council. In addition, the CTS is responsible for a technical review of GATS Article XX.2 

provisions; waivers from specific commitments pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article IX of the 

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO; a periodic review of developments in the air transport 

sector; the transitional review mechanism under Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the 

People’s Republic of China; implementation of GATS Article VII; the MFN review; and notifications 

made to the General Council pursuant to GATS Articles III.3, V.5, V.7, and VII.4. 

The ongoing market access negotiations take place in the CTS Special Session, described earlier in this 

chapter. Other bodies that report to the CTS include: the Committee on Specific Commitments, the 

Committee on Trade in Financial Services, the Working Party on Domestic Regulation, and the Working 

Party on GATS Rules. The following section discusses work in the CTS regular session. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The CTS met in April, June and November 2009. The CTS elected the delegate from Nigeria as its new 

Chairperson in April. 

Following a request from certain delegations during informal consultations held at the beginning of 2009, 

the Chair held discussions on the issue of Members’ compliance with GATS notification requirements 

during the April and June meetings of the CTS. These discussions were guided by a Secretariat Note 

(JOB(09)/10/Rev.1) that provided an accounting of notifications under GATS articles III.3, V, and VII. 

Members also commented on a communication from Switzerland entitled, “Compliance with notification 

requirements under the GATS.” 

The CTS requested that the Secretariat update its Background Notes on services sectors and modes of 

supply, which were produced in 1998 for informational reference by Members. The CTS has thus far 

taken up eight of the Secretariat’s updated Background Notes, including tourism services, 

telecommunication services, computer and related services, architectural services, construction and 

related engineering services, Modes 1 and 2, Mode 3, and Mode 4. 

During the April meeting of the CTS, Australia raised its ongoing concerns related to the entry into force 

of the EC-25 schedule of commitments pursuant to GATS Article XXI and the procedures outlined in 

S/L/80 and S/L/84. The EU explained that the EC Council required each individual Member State to 

ratify the relevant agreements and called for a consultation by the European Parliament. Entry into force 

of the EC-25 schedule is now dependent on the outcome of those proceedings. At the time of the 

meeting, fourteen EU Member States had ratified the agreement according to their national procedures. 

 As part of China’s Transitional Review Mechanism, the CTS held its eighth annual review of China’s 

implementation of its services commitments in November 2009. The United States and other Members 

used the opportunity to raise questions and express concerns with regard to China’s implementation of 

certain commitments. 

The CTS received a number of notifications pursuant to GATS Article III.3 (transparency and GATS 

Article VII (recognition). Albania, Brazil, China, India, New Zealand, Paraguay, Switzerland and 
II. The World Trade Organization | 65 

Thailand made notifications under Article III.3. Notifications pursuant to GATS Article VII were made 

by Australia and Chile; China and Hong Kong, China; and China and Macao, China; China and New 

Zealand; China and Singapore; Costa Rica and Panama; Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States; Colombia and Panama; Japan and 

Switzerland; Japan and Vietnam; Nicaragua and Taiwan; Panama and Taiwan; Peru and Canada; Peru and 

Singapore; Peru and the United States; and the United States and Oman. 

Prospects for 2010 

The CTS will continue discussions pursuant to the Annex on Air Transport Services review and other 

mandated reviews, and various notifications related to GATS implementation. 

1. Committee on Trade in Financial Services 

Status 

The Committee on Trade in Financial Services (CTFS) provides a forum for Members to explore 

financial services market access or regulatory issues, including implementation of existing trade 

commitments. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The CTFS met in March, June and November 2009. During the March 2009 meeting, the Committee 

elected the delegate from South Africa as the new Chairperson. 

Members continued to urge Brazil, Jamaica, and the Philippines, to take the necessary steps to accept the 

Fifth Protocol to the GATS. In accepting the protocol, financial services commitments made in 1994 

would be replaced by those agreed during the 1995-97 extended negotiations on financial services. All 

other Members have accepted the protocol. The Chair invited these Members to provide information on 

the status of their domestic ratification efforts. Brazil and the Philippines provided updates to the 

Committee, although neither reported meaningful progress. 

A workshop to commemorate the entry into force of the Fifth Protocol was held at the March meeting. 

Speakers at the workshop included financial regulators, as well as representatives from academia and the 

private sector. 

In November 2009, as part of China’s Transitional Review Mechanism, the CTFS carried out its seventh 

annual review of China’s implementation of its WTO financial services commitments. The United States 

and other Members used that opportunity to raise questions and express concerns with China’s 

implementation of certain commitments concerning insurance, banking and related services, securities, 

pensions, and financial information services. 

The CTFS also provided a forum for discussion of other topics, including technical issues and recent 

developments in financial services trade. Topics introduced in 2009 included a proposal from the United 

States to exchange information related to the liberalization of trade in non-life insurance services, and a 

suggestion from Pakistan to discuss issues related to the development of e-banking. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 66 

 

Prospects for 2010 

The CTFS will continue to use its broad and flexible mandate to discuss various issues, including 

ratification of existing commitments as well as market access and regulatory issues. 

2. Working Party on Domestic Regulation 

Status 

GATS Article VI:4, on Domestic Regulation, provides for Members to develop any necessary disciplines 

relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements and 

procedures. A Ministerial Decision assigned priority to the professional services sector, and Members 

subsequently established the Working Party on Professional Services (WPPS). In May 1997, the WPPS 

developed Guidelines for the Negotiation of Mutual Recognition Agreements in the Accountancy Sector, 

adopted by the WTO. The WPPS completed Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy 

Sector in December 1998. The texts are available at http://www.wto.org. 

In May 1999, the CTS established a new Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) which took on 

the work of the predecessor WPPS and its existing mandate. The WPDR is charged with determining 

whether any new disciplines are deemed necessary beyond those negotiated for the accountancy sector. 

At the December 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, Ministers directed the WPDR to develop 

disciplines on domestic regulation pursuant to the mandate under Article VI:4 of the GATS before the end 

of the current round of negotiations. 

Thereafter, the pace of negotiations increased dramatically. In April 2007, the WPDR Chair issued an 

informal note on possible new disciplines for domestic regulation. This informal note was revised in 

January 2008. The informal note was an attempt to consolidate elements of Members’ proposals with a 

view to moving Members closer to a consensus on basic threshold issues, such as the appropriate level of 

ambition for disciplines applied to all services sectors, whether or not to submit any new disciplines to an 

operational “necessity test,” how to balance the goal of diminishing regulatory trade barriers with the 

fundamental right to regulate, and how to address different levels of development. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The WPDR met in April, June, October, and November of 2009. In April 2009, the WPDR elected the 

delegate from Japan as its new chairperson. During 2009 the WPDR based its discussions on a March 

2009 revision to the informal note, which made minor revisions to the January 2008 draft. Those minor 

revisions reflected the few areas in which the prior Chair had identified areas of convergence during 

meetings in 2008, and were largely uncontroversial. 

Members welcomed the March 2009 text as a basis for future negotiations, although it is clear that 

Members continue to have concerns about the basic threshold issues. Thus far, none of the proposed new 

disciplines have been agreed to by Members. To try to bridge some of the differences among Members, 

in September 2009 the Chair began a series of meetings to discuss the informal text section by section. 

During these meetings, Members presented new textual proposals designed to build consensus on 

substantive issues and address drafting concerns with the informal note. 

The United States continued to negotiate on the basis of its June 2006 position paper on the WPDR. The 

United States considers that the horizontal or sector-specific application of any new disciplines should 

depend on the nature of the proposed disciplines, and the legitimate policy considerations of national and 
II. The World Trade Organization | 67 

subnational regulatory authorities. Because of the wide variety of services sectors, there will be 

significant legal and practical constraints on the feasibility of disciplines which apply on a horizontal 

basis. For that reason, the United States’ priority in 2009 continued to be horizontal disciplines for 

regulatory transparency. Such disciplines are appropriate for horizontal implementation because they 

involve universal principles that promote governmental accountability, rule of law, and good governance. 

The United States also joined many other Members in voicing strong caution about submitting domestic 

regulations to an operational “necessity test” or its equivalent based on concerns that this could be overly 

intrusive on Members’ rights to regulate.

Prospects for 2010 

As the United States and other Members have made clear on numerous occasions, future work in the 

WPDR will depend on the pace of negotiations for services market access. As the overall negotiations 

progress, the WPDR may continue to work in informal and ad hoc meetings on the basis of the March 

2009 informal note, and proposals advanced by Members. 

3. Working Party on GATS Rules 

Status 

The Working Party on GATS Rules (WPGR) provides a forum to discuss the possibility of new 

disciplines on emergency safeguard measures, government procurement, and subsidies in the context of 

the GATS in accordance with the Doha Work Program resulting from the Hong Kong Ministerial 

Conference in December 2005. That program called for Members to intensify their efforts to conclude 

the negotiations on rule-making under GATS Articles X (emergency safeguard mechanism), Article XIII 

(government procurement), and Article XV (subsidies). 

Major Issues in 2009 

The WPGR held formal meetings in April, June, October and November 2009. The WPGR resumed 

ongoing discussions of emergency safeguard measures, government procurement, and subsidies. During 

its April meeting, the WPGR also elected the delegate from Chile as its new Chairperson. 

Regarding emergency safeguard measures, Members continued discussions on the basis of an informal 

communication from a group of ASEAN Members that proposed legal language establishing rules for the 

use of emergency safeguard measures in services. Issues raised during these largely informal discussions 

included the relationship of an emergency safeguard measure to market access commitments, modal 

application, conditions of application, how to establish a causal link, and special and differential 

treatment. In October 2009, the Secretariat issued an informal note on the treatment of the concept of 

"domestic industry" under the anti-dumping, subsidies and safeguard agreements; during the November 

meeting, Members discussed whether this concept would be relevant for an emergency safeguard measure 

in services. Members continue to express divergent views on the various aspects raised in relation to 

emergency safeguard measures, and the United States and other Members continue to question the 

desirability and feasibility of any such measures. 

On government procurement of services, delegations continued their discussion of a proposal by the EU 

regarding a legal text for an Annex to the GATS. Members exchanged views on this proposal, and raised 

issues relating to possible benefits of opening procurement markets, procedural rules, special and 

differential treatment, the relationship to the plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement, and MFN 

application. The United States continues to engage on this issue, but has questioned the need for a 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 68 

 

government procurement annex to the GATS in light of the fact that the Agreement on Government 

Procurement already covers services. 

With respect to subsidies, Members continued to discuss an informal communication from Hong Kong, 

China and Mexico and a follow-up document from Hong Kong, China on non-actionable subsidies. In 

September 2009 the Chair issued an informal note recalling for Members a proposal for a provisional 

definition of subsidies in services, submitted by Chile, Hong Kong, Mexico, Peru, and Switzerland in 

2005. Members discussed whether this definition could facilitate an information exchange on subsidies; 

many Members, including the United States, had questions about the proposed provisional definition. 

The United States continues to engage on this issue, but has insisted that a clear definition of subsidies is 

needed before any reporting requirement can be fulfilled. 

Prospects for 2010 

Future work in the WPGR will depend on the pace of negotiations for services market access. As the 

overall negotiations progress, the WPGR may continue focused discussions in all three areas, including 

technical and procedural questions relating to the operation and application of any possible emergency 

safeguard measures in services; proposals by Members concerning government procurement of services; 

and further discussion of how to facilitate a productive information exchange on subsidies. 

4. Committee on Specific Commitments 

Status 

The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) examines ways to improve the technical accuracy of 

scheduling commitments, primarily in preparation for the GATS negotiations, and oversees the 

application of the procedures for the modification of schedules under GATS Article XXI. The CSC also 

oversees implementation of commitments in Members’ schedules in sectors for which there is no sectoral 

body, which is currently the case for all sectors except financial services. The CSC also works to improve 

the classification of services, so that scheduled commitments reflect the service activity, particularly with 

regard to new or evolving services. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The CSC held meetings in April, June, and November 2009. The CSC resumed previous discussion of 

classification and scheduling issues, and the relationship between old and new commitments. During the 

April meeting, the CSC also elected the delegate from France as its new Chairperson. The CSC hosted 

scheduling workshops in April and November 2009, which enabled Members to discuss common 

questions that arise in the drafting of commitments. 

Classification: Members considered whether sectoral work undertaken by the Secretariat could lead to 

future work within the committee on classification matters, and the Chair was to pursue consultations to 

that effect. 

Scheduling issues: The Committee engaged in some discussion on issues related to economic needs tests, 

including whether to ask the Secretariat to update a 2001 background note (S/CSS/W/118). 

Relationship between old and new commitments: Discussions continued on the relationship between 

existing schedules and the new commitments resulting from the current negotiations. Topics included 

methods and instruments for incorporating new commitments and the process for verifying final 
II. The World Trade Organization | 69 

schedules of commitments. Members tended to agree that the replacement method is the most appropriate 

means of incorporating the results of the current negotiations into the GATS. Some Members, however, 

continued to suggest that old commitments should be given some legal standing beyond a source of 

interpretation, and one Member put forward a text proposal to that effect. 

Prospects for 2010 

Work will continue on technical issues and other issues that Members raise. The CSC will likely 

continue to examine classification and scheduling issues; and increase its focus on language proposals for 

the protocol incorporating new commitments as well as the verification process to be applied following 

the submission of final schedules. 

I. Dispute Settlement Understanding 

Status

The Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Dispute Settlement 

Understanding or DSU), which is annexed to the WTO Agreement, provides a mechanism to settle 

disputes under the Uruguay Round Agreements. Thus, it is key to the enforcement of U.S. rights under 

these Agreements. 

The DSU is administered by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which consists of representatives of the 

entire membership of the WTO, and is empowered to establish dispute settlement panels, adopt panel and 

Appellate Body reports, oversee the implementation of panel recommendations adopted by the DSB, and 

authorize retaliation. The DSB makes all its decisions by consensus. 

Major Issues in 2009

The DSB met 16 times in 2009 to oversee disputes, and to address responsibilities such as appointing 

members to the Appellate Body and approving additions to the roster of governmental and nongovernmental panelists. 

Roster of Governmental and Non-Governmental Panelists: Article 8 of the DSU makes it clear that 

panelists may be drawn from either the public or private sector and must be “well-qualified,” such as 

persons who have served on or presented a case to a panel, represented a government in the WTO or the 

GATT, served with the Secretariat, taught or published in the international trade field, or served as a 

senior trade policy official. Since 1985, the Secretariat has maintained a roster of non-governmental 

experts for GATT 1947 dispute settlement, which has been available for use by parties in selecting 

panelists. In 1995, the DSB agreed on procedures for renewing and maintaining the roster, and expanding 

it to include governmental experts. In response to a U.S. proposal, the DSB also adopted standards 

increasing and systematizing the information submitted by roster candidates. These modifications aid in 

evaluating candidates’ qualifications and encouraging the appointment of well-qualified candidates who 

have expertise in the subject matters of the Uruguay Round Agreements. In 2009, the DSB approved by 

consensus a number of additional names for the roster, including an updating of the names nominated by 

the United States. The United States scrutinized the credentials of these candidates to assure the quality 

of the roster. 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), the present WTO panel 

roster appears in the background information in Annex II. The list in the roster notes the areas of 

expertise of each roster member (goods, services, and/or TRIPS). 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 70 

 

Rules of Conduct for the DSU: The DSB completed work on a code of ethical conduct for WTO dispute 

settlement and, on December 3, 1996, adopted the Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and 

Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. A copy of the Rules of Conduct was printed in the 

Annual Report for 1996 and is available on the WTO and USTR websites. There were no changes in 

these Rules in 2009. 

The Rules of Conduct elaborate on the ethical standards built into the DSU to maintain the integrity, 

impartiality, and confidentiality of proceedings conducted under the DSU. The Rules of Conduct require 

all individuals called upon to participate in dispute settlement proceedings to disclose direct or indirect 

conflicts of interest prior to their involvement in the proceedings, and to conduct themselves during their 

involvement in the proceedings so as to avoid such conflicts. 

The Rules of Conduct also provide parties an opportunity to address potential material violations of these 

ethical standards. The coverage of the Rules of Conduct exceeds the goals established by Congress in 

section 123(c) of the URAA, which directed USTR to seek conflict of interest rules applicable to persons 

serving on panels and members of the Appellate Body. The Rules of Conduct cover not only panelists 

and Appellate Body members, but also: (1) arbitrators; (2) experts participating in the dispute settlement 

mechanism (e.g., the Permanent Group of Experts under the SCM Agreement); (3) members of the WTO 

Secretariat assisting a panel or assisting in a formal arbitration proceeding; (4) the Chair of the Textile 

Monitoring Body (“TMB”) and other members of the TMB Secretariat assisting the TMB in formulating 

recommendations, findings, or observations under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing; and (5) 

support staff of the Appellate Body. 

As noted above, the Rules of Conduct established a disclosure-based system. Examples of the types of 

information that covered persons must disclose are set forth in Annex II to the Rules, and include: (1) 

financial interests, business interests, and property interests relevant to the dispute in question; (2) 

professional interests; (3) other active interests; (4) considered statements of personal opinion on issues 

relevant to the dispute in question; and (5) employment or family interests. 

Appellate Body: The DSU requires the DSB to appoint seven persons to serve on an Appellate Body, 

which is to be a standing body with members serving four-year terms, except for three initial appointees 

determined by lot whose terms expired at the end of two years. At its first meeting on February 10, 1995, 

the DSB formally established the Appellate Body, and agreed to arrangements for selecting its members 

and staff. They also agreed that Appellate Body members would serve on a part-time basis, and sit 

periodically in Geneva. The original seven Appellate Body members, who took their oath on December 

11, 1995, were Mr. James Bacchus of the United States, Mr. Christopher Beeby of New Zealand, 

Professor Claus-Dieter Ehlermann of Germany, Dr. Said El-Naggar of Egypt, Justice Florentino Feliciano 

of the Philippines, Mr. Julio Lacarte-Muró of Uruguay, and Professor Mitsuo Matsushita of Japan. On 

June 25, 1997, it was determined by lot that the terms of Messrs. Ehlermann, Feliciano and Lacarte-Muró 

would expire in December 1997. The DSB agreed on the same date to reappoint them for a final term of 

four years commencing on 11 December 1997. On October 27, 1999, and November 3, 1999, the DSB 

agreed to renew the terms of Messrs. Bacchus and Beeby for a final term of four years, commencing on 

December 11, 1999, and to extend the terms of Dr. El-Naggar and Professor Matsushita until the end of 

March 2000. On April 7, 2000, the DSB agreed to appoint Mr. Georges Michel Abi-Saab of Egypt and 

Mr. A.V. Ganesan of India to a term of four years commencing on June 1, 2000. On May 25, 2000, the 

DSB agreed to the appointment of Professor Yasuhei Taniguchi of Japan to serve through December 10, 

2003, the remainder of the term of Mr. Beeby, who passed away on March 19, 2000. On September 25, 

2001, the DSB agreed to appoint Mr. Luiz Olavo Baptista of Brazil, Mr. John S. Lockhart of Australia 

and Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti of Italy to a term of four years commencing on December 19, 2001. On 

November 7, 2003, the DSB agreed to appoint Professor Merit Janow of the United States to a term of 
II. The World Trade Organization | 71 

four years commencing on December 11, 2003, to reappoint Professor Taniguchi for a final term of four 

years commencing on December 11, 2003, and to reappoint Mr. Abi-Saab and Mr. Ganesan for a final 

term of four years commencing on June 1, 2004. On September 27, 2005, the DSB agreed to reappoint 

Mr. Baptista, Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Sacerdoti for a final term of four years commencing on December 12, 

2005. On July 31, 2006, the DSB agreed to the appointment of Mr. David Unterhalter of South Africa to 

serve through December 11, 2009, the remainder of the term of Mr. Lockhart, who passed away on 

January 13, 2006. On November 27, 2007, the DSB agreed to appoint Ms. Lilia R. Bautista of the 

Philippines and Ms. Jennifer Hillman of the United States as members of the Appellate Body for four 

years commencing on December 11, 2007, and to appoint Mr. Shotaro Oshima of Japan and Ms. Yuejiao 

Zhang of China as members of the Appellate Body for four years commencing on June 1, 2008. On 

November 12, 2008, Mr. Baptista notified the DSB that he was resigning for health reasons, effective in 

90 days. On June 19, 2009, the DSB agreed to appoint Mr. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández of Mexico as a 

member of the Appellate Body for four years commencing on July 1, 2009, to appoint Mr. Peter Van den 

Bossche of Belgium as a member of the Appellate Body for four years commencing on December 12, 

2009, and to reappoint Mr. Unterhalter for a final term of four years commencing on December 12, 2009. 

The names and biographical data for the Appellate Body members during 2009 are included in Annex II 

of this report. 

The Appellate Body has also adopted Working Procedures for Appellate Review. On February 28, 1997, 

the Appellate Body issued a revision of the Working Procedures, providing for a two-year term for the 

first Chairperson, and one-year terms for subsequent Chairpersons. In 2001, the Appellate Body amended 

its working procedures to provide for no more than two consecutive terms for Chairperson. Mr. LacarteMuró, the first Chairperson, served until February 7, 1998; Mr. Beeby served as Chairperson from 

February 7, 1998 to February 6, 1999; Mr. El-Naggar served as Chairperson from February 7, 1999 to 

February 6, 2000; Mr. Feliciano served as Chairperson from February 7, 2000 to February 6, 2001; Mr. 

Ehlermann served as Chairperson from February 7, 2001 to December 10, 2001; Mr. Bacchus served as 

Chairperson from December 15, 2001 to December 10, 2003; Mr. Abi-Saab served as Chairperson from 

December 13, 2003 to December 12, 2004; Mr. Taniguchi served as Chairperson from December 17, 

2004 to December 16, 2005; Mr. Ganesan served as Chairperson from December 17, 2005 to December 

16, 2006; Mr. Sacerdoti served as Chairperson from December 17, 2006 to December 17, 2007; Mr. 

Baptista served as Chairperson from December 18, 2007, to December 17, 2008; Mr. Unterhalter began 

serving as Chairperson on December 18, 2008, and his current term expires on December 11, 2010. 

In 2009, the Appellate Body issued 4 reports, all of which involved the United States as a party and are 

discussed in detail below. 

On January 14, 2009, the United States submitted a proposal to the Dispute Settlement Body entitled 

“Improvements for the Appellate Body.” The proposal has three main elements: formally giving 

Appellate Body members full-time status; providing each Appellate Body member with a law clerk 

devoted to that member; and establishing a more formal mechanism of WTO Members to ensure that 

Appellate Body members have access to ongoing professional development. 

Dispute Settlement Activity in 2009: During the DSB’s first fifteen years in operation, WTO Members 

filed 402 requests for consultations (22 in 1995, 42 in 1996, 46 in 1997, 44 in 1998, 31 in 1999, 30 in 

2000, 27 in 2001, 37 in 2002, 26 in 2003, 19 in 2004, 11 in 2005, 20 in 2006, 14 in 2007, 19 in 2008, and 

14 in 2009). During that period, the United States filed 82 complaints against other Members’ measures 

and received 116 complaints on U.S. measures. Several of these complaints involved the same issues as 

other complaints (4 U.S. complaints against others and 27 complaints against the United States). A 

number of disputes commenced in earlier years remained active in 2009. What follows is a description of 

those disputes in which the United States was a complainant, defendant, or third party during the past 

year. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 72 

 

Prospects for 2010

While there were improvements to the multilateral trading system’s dispute settlement system as a result 

of the Uruguay Round, there is still room for improvement. Accordingly, the United States has used the 

opportunity of the ongoing review to seek improvements in its operation, including greater transparency. 

In 2010, we expect the DSB to continue to focus on the administration of the dispute settlement process in 

the context of individual disputes. Experience gained with the DSU will be incorporated into the U.S. 

litigation and negotiation strategy for enforcing U.S. WTO rights, as well as the U.S. position on DSU 

reform. Participants will continue to consider reform proposals in 2010. 

a. Disputes Brought by the United States 

In 2009, the United States continued to be one of the most active participants in the WTO dispute 

settlement process. This section includes brief summaries of dispute settlement activity in 2009 where the 

United States was a complainant. As demonstrated by these summaries, the WTO dispute settlement 

process has proven to be an effective tool in combating barriers to U.S. exports. Indeed, in a number of 

cases the United States has been able to achieve satisfactory outcomes by invoking the consultation 

provisions of the dispute settlement procedures, without recourse to formal panel proceedings. 

China–Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts (DS340): 

On March 30, 2006, the United States requested consultations with China regarding China’s treatment of 

motor vehicle parts, components, and accessories (“automotive parts”) imported from the United States. 

Although China’s WTO commitments limit its tariffs on imported automotive parts to rates that are 

significantly below China’s tariffs on finished vehicles, China implemented regulations that imposed an 

internal charge on imported automotive parts equal to the tariff on complete automobiles if the final 

assembled vehicle in which the parts were incorporated failed to meet certain local content requirements. 

The United States was concerned that these regulations imposed an internal tax on U.S. automotive parts 

beyond that allowed by WTO rules and resulted in discrimination against U.S. automotive parts. These 

regulations appeared inconsistent with several WTO provisions, including Article III of the GATT 1994 

and Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, as well as specific commitments 

made by China in its WTO accession agreement. The EU (WT/DS/339) and Canada (WT/DS/442) also 

initiated disputes regarding the same matter. The EU, Canada, and the United States requested the 

establishment of a panel on September 28, 2006, and a single panel was established on October 26, 2006 

to examine the complaints. On January 29, 2007, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: 

Mr. Julio Lacarte-Muró, Chair; and Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia and Mr. Wilhelm Meier, Members. 

The panel circulated its report on July 18, 2008. The report upheld U.S. claims that China’s regulations 

were inconsistent with China’s WTO obligations. In particular, it found that China’s regulations imposed 

discriminatory internal charges and administrative procedures on imported automotive parts resulting in 

violation of Articles III:2 and III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, and that certain 

aspects of the regulations were inconsistent with specific commitments made by China in its WTO 

accession agreement. 

On September 15, 2008, China appealed the panel findings to the WTO Appellate Body. On December 

15, 2008, the Appellate Body issued its report. The Appellate Body upheld the panel’s findings that the 

measures imposed internal charges and regulations, and that these charges and regulations breached 

China’s obligations under Articles III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. In addition, the Appellate Body 

interpreted the measures as not specifying the tariff treatment for certain products, and on this basis found 
II. The World Trade Organization | 73 

that the measures did not implicate the specific commitment in China’s WTO accession agreement that 

had been considered by the Panel. 

On January 12, 2009, the DSB adopted the reports of the Appellate Body and the report of the Panel (as 

modified by the Appellate Body report). The United States and China subsequently agreed that the 

reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would be seven 

months and 20 days from the date of DSB adoption, a period which expired on September 1, 2009. 

Shortly before the expiration of the reasonable period of time, China informed that United States and the 

other complaining parties that it had complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings by 

withdrawing the measures in dispute. 

China–Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (WT/DS362): 

On April 10, 2007, the United States requested consultations with China regarding certain measures 

pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. The United States 

and China held consultations on June 7-8, 2007, but the consultations did not resolve the dispute. On 

August 13, 2007, the United States requested the establishment of a panel, and a panel was established on 

September 25, 2007. On December 13, 2007, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. 

Adrian Macey, Chair; and Mr. Marino Porzio and Mr. Sivakant Tiwari, Members. 

The panel circulated its report on January 26, 2009. The panel found that China's denial of copyright 

protection to works that do not meet China’s content review standards is inconsistent with the TRIPS 

Agreement. The panel also found it inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement for China to provide for 

simple removal of an infringing trademark as the only precondition for the sale at public auction of 

counterfeit goods seized by Chinese customs authorities. 

With respect to the U.S. claim regarding thresholds in China’s law that must be met in order for certain 

acts of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy to be subject to criminal procedures and penalties, 

the panel clarified that China must provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied to willful 

trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale. The panel agreed with the United 

States that Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement requires China not to set its thresholds for prosecution of 

piracy and counterfeiting so high as to ignore the realities of the commercial marketplace. The Panel did 

find, however, that it needed more evidence in order to decide whether the actual thresholds for 

prosecution in China’s criminal law are so high as to allow commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy to 

occur without the possibility of criminal prosecution. 

The DSB adopted the panel report on March 20, 2009. On April 15, 2009, China notified the DSB that 

China intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and stated it 

would need a reasonable period of time for implementation. On June 29, 2009, the United States and 

China notified the DSB that they had agreed on a one-year period of time for implementation, to end on 

March 20, 2010. 

China–Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and 

Audiovisual Entertainment Products (WT/DS363):

On April 10, 2007, the United States requested consultations with China regarding certain measures 

related to the import and/or distribution of imported films for theatrical release, audiovisual home 

entertainment products (e.g., video cassettes and DVDs), sound recordings, and publications (e.g., books, 

magazines, newspapers, and electronic publications). On July 10, 2007, the United States requested 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 74 

 

supplemental consultations with China regarding certain measures pertaining to the distribution of 

imported films for theatrical release and sound recordings. 

Specifically, the United States is concerned that certain Chinese measures: (1) restrict trading rights (such 

as the right to import goods into China) with respect to imported films for theatrical release, audiovisual 

home entertainment products, sound recordings, and publications; and (2) restrict market access for, or 

discriminate against, imported films for theatrical release and sound recordings in physical form, and 

foreign service providers seeking to engage in the distribution of certain publications, audiovisual home 

entertainment products, and sound recordings. The Chinese measures at issue appear to be inconsistent 

with several WTO provisions, including provisions in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 

(GATT 1994) and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), as well as specific commitments 

made by China in its WTO accession agreement. 

The United States and China held consultations on June 5-6, 2007 and July 31, 2007, but they did not 

resolve the dispute. On October 10, 2007, the United States requested the establishment of a panel, and 

on November 27, 2007, a panel was established. On March 27, 2008, the Director-General composed the 

panel as follows: Mr. Florentino P. Feliciano, Chair; and Mr. Juan Antonio Dorantes and Mr. Christian 

Häberli, Members. 

The report of the panel was circulated to WTO Members and made public on August 12, 2009. In the 

final report, the panel made three critical sets of findings. First, the panel found that China’s restrictions 

on foreign-invested enterprises (and in some cases foreign individuals) from importing films for theatrical 

release, audiovisual home entertainment products, sound recordings, and publications are inconsistent 

with China’s trading rights commitments as set forth in China’s protocol of accession to the WTO. The 

panel also found that China’s restrictions on the right to import these products are not justified by Article 

XX(a) of the GATT 1994. Second, the panel found that China’s prohibitions and discriminatory 

restrictions on foreign-owned or -controlled enterprises seeking to distribute publications and sound 

recordings over the Internet are inconsistent with China’s obligations under the GATS. Third, the panel 

also found that China’s treatment of imported publications is inconsistent with the national treatment 

obligation in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 

In September 2009, China filed a notice of appeal to the WTO Appellate Body, appealing certain of the 

panel’s findings. First, China contended that its restrictions on importation of the products at issue are 

justified by an exception related to the protection of public morals. Second, China claimed that while it 

had made commitments to allow foreign enterprises to partner in joint ventures with Chinese enterprises 

to distribute music, those commitments did not cover the electronic distribution of music. Third, and 

finally, China claimed that its import restrictions on films for theatrical release and certain types of sound 

recordings and DVDs were not inconsistent with China’s commitments related to the right to import 

because those products were not goods and therefore were not subject to those commitments. The United 

States filed a cross-appeal on one aspect of the panel’s analysis of China’s defense under GATT Article 

XX(a). On December 21, 2009, the Appellate Body issued its report. The Appellate Body rejected each 

of China’s claims on appeal. The Appellate Body also found that the Panel had erred in the aspect of the 

analysis that the United States had appealed. 

China–Prohibited subsidies (WT/DS358):

On February 2 and April 27, 2007, the United States requested consultations and supplemental 

consultations, respectively, with China regarding subsidies provided in the form of refunds, reductions, or 

exemptions from income taxes or other payments. Because they are offered on the condition that 

enterprises purchase domestic over imported goods, or on the condition that enterprises meet certain 
II. The World Trade Organization | 75 

export performance criteria, these subsidies appear to be inconsistent with several provisions of the WTO 

Agreement, including Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Article III:4 

of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, and Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related 

Investment Measures, as well as specific commitments made by China in its WTO accession agreement. 

Mexico also initiated a dispute regarding the same subsidies. 

Because consultations did not resolve the disputes, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, at the request of 

the United States and Mexico, established a single dispute settlement panel on August 31, 2007 to hear 

both disputes. 

On December 19, 2007, the United States and China informed the DSB that they had reached an 

agreement with respect to this matter and circulated a copy of the agreement. The agreement calls for 

China to take certain steps, including the revision and repeal of certain existing measures as well as the 

adoption of new measures, that would eliminate by January 1, 2008 the import substitution and export 

subsidies challenged by the United States. The agreement also commits China not to reintroduce those 

subsidies or establish import substitution or export subsidies under its new income tax law that went into 

effect on January 1, 2008. Mexico reached a similar agreement with China with respect to Mexico’s 

dispute on the same subsidies. 

China–Measures affecting financial information services and foreign financial information suppliers 

(WT/DS373):

On March 3, 2008, the United States requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China 

concerning China’s treatment of foreign financial information suppliers. China’s regulatory regime 

required foreign financial information suppliers to operate through a government-designated distributor 

and prohibited them from establishing local operations to provide their services. In addition, the agency 

designated by China to regulate these services appeared to have a conflict of interest as it was closely 

connected to a commercial operator in China. This regime appeared inconsistent with several WTO 

provisions, including Articles XVI, XVII, and XVIII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, as 

well as specific commitments made by China in its WTO accession protocol. 

The EU also requested WTO consultations with China on the same measures. The United States, the EC, 

and China held joint consultations on April 22-23, 2008. On June 20, 2008, Canada requested 

consultations with China regarding the same measures. 

On December 4, 2008, the United States and China informed the DSB that they had reached an agreement 

with respect to this matter and provided a copy of the agreement for circulation. The agreement calls for 

China to take certain steps, including the revision and repeal of certain existing measures, as well as the 

adoption of new measures, to respond to the United States’ concerns regarding the absence of an 

independent regulator and the imposition of unfair requirements and restrictions on U.S. financial 

information service suppliers operating in China. China’s commitments under the agreement include the 

establishment, by January 31, 2009, of an independent regulator for foreign financial information service 

suppliers, and the implementation of new non-discriminatory and transparent regulations by June 1, 2009. 

The United States is continuing to monitor China’s implementation of the agreement. The EU and 

Canada reached identical agreements with China with respect to their disputes on the same matter. 

China– Grants, loans and other incentives (DS387):

On December 19, 2008, the United States requested consultations with China regarding government 

support tied to China’s industrial policy to promote the sale of Chinese brand name and other products 

abroad. This support is provided in the form of cash grant rewards, preferential loans, research and 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 76 

 

development funding, and payments to lower the cost of export credit insurance. Because these subsidies 

are offered on the condition that enterprises meet certain export performance criteria, they appear to be 

inconsistent with several provisions of the WTO Agreement, including Article 3 of the Agreement on 

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and Articles 3, 9, and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as 

well as specific commitments made by China in its WTO accession agreement. In addition, to the extent 

that the grants, loans, and other incentives also benefit Chinese-origin products, but not imported 

products, the measures appear to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs 

and Trade 1994. Mexico and Guatemala also initiated disputes regarding the same subsidies. 

Joint consultations were held in February 2009. On December 18, 2009, the parties concluded a 

settlement agreement in which China confirmed that it had eliminated all of the export-contingent benefits 

in the challenged measures. 

European Union–Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) (DS26, 48): 

The United States and Canada challenged the EU ban on imports of meat from animals to which any of 

six hormones for growth promotional purposes had been administered. The panel found that the EU ban 

is inconsistent with the EU’s obligations under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), and that the ban is not based on science, a risk assessment, 

or relevant international standards. 

 

Upon appeal, the Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s findings that the EU ban fails to satisfy the 

requirements of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body also found that, while a country has broad 

discretion in electing what level of protection it wishes to implement, in doing so it must fulfill the 

requirements of the SPS Agreement. In this case, the ban imposed is not rationally related to the 

conclusions of the risk assessments the EU had performed. 

Because the EU did not comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB by May 13, 1999, the 

final date of its compliance period as set by arbitration, the United States sought WTO authorization to 

suspend concessions with respect to certain products of the EU. The value of the suspension of 

concessions represents an estimate of the annual harm to U.S. exports resulting from the EU’s failure to 

lift its ban on imports of U.S. meat. The EU exercised its right to request arbitration concerning the 

amount of the suspension. On July 12, 1999, the arbitrators determined the level of suspension to be 

$116.8 million. On July 26, 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend such concessions and 

the United States proceeded to impose 100 percent ad valorem duties on a list of EU products with an 

annual trade value of $116.8 million. On May 26, 2000, USTR announced that it was considering 

changes to that list of EU products, but did not make any changes. 

On November 3, 2003, the EU notified the WTO that it had amended its hormones ban. As discussed 

below (DS320), on November 8, 2004, the EU requested consultations with respect to “the United States’ 

continued suspension of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements” in the EU – 

Hormones dispute. The Appellate Body issued its report in the U.S. – Continued Suspension

(WT/DS320) dispute on October 16, 2008. 

On October 31, 2008, USTR again announced that it was considering changes to the list of EU products 

on which 100 percent ad valorem duties had been imposed in 1999. A modified list of EU products was 

announced by USTR on January 15, 2009. 

On December 22, 2008, the EU requested consultations with the United States and Canada pursuant to 

Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU, regarding the EU’s implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and 
II. The World Trade Organization | 77 

rulings in the EU – Hormones dispute. In its consultations request, the EU stated that it considered that it 

has brought into compliance the measures found inconsistent in EU – Hormones by, among other things, 

adopting its revised ban in 2003. Consultations took place in February 2009. 

 

Discussions between the United States and the EU resulted in the conclusion of a Memorandum of 

Understanding (“Beef MOU”) on May 13, 2009. The Beef MOU provides for increased, duty-free access 

to the EU market for beef produced without certain growth promoting hormones and maintains increased 

duties on a reduced list of EU products. Under the terms of the Beef MOU, after three years, duty-free 

access to the EU market for beef produced without certain growth promoting hormones may increase and 

the application of all remaining increased duties imposed on EU products may be suspended. The Beef 

MOU also suspends further litigation in the EU – Hormones compliance proceeding until at least 

February 3, 2011. 

European Union–Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotechnology products (DS291): 

Since the late 1990s, the EU has pursued policies that undermine agricultural biotechnology and trade in 

biotechnological foods. After approving a number of biotechnological products through October 1998, 

the EU adopted an across-the-board moratorium under which no further biotechnology applications were 

allowed to reach final approval. In addition, six Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, 

and Luxemburg) adopted unjustified bans on certain biotechnological crops that had been approved by the 

EU prior to the adoption of the moratorium. These measures have caused a growing portion of U.S. 

agricultural exports to be excluded from EU markets, and unfairly cast concerns about biotechnology 

products around the world, particularly in developing countries. 

On May 13, 2003, the United States filed a consultation request with respect to: (1) the EU’s moratorium 

on all new biotechnology approvals; (2) delays in the processing of specific biotech product applications; 

and (3) the product-specific bans adopted by six EU Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, 

Italy, and Luxembourg). The United States requested the establishment of a panel on August 7, 2003. 

Argentina and Canada submitted similar consultation and panel requests. On August 29, 2003, the DSB 

established a panel to consider the claims of the United States, Argentina and Canada. On March 4, 2003, 

the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Christian Häberli, Chair; and Mr. Mohan Kumar 

and Mr. Akio Shimizu, Members. 

The panel issued its report on September 29, 2006. The panel agreed with the United States, Argentina, 

and Canada that the disputed measures of the EU, Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and 

Luxembourg are inconsistent with the obligations set out in the SPS Agreement. In particular: 

 The panel found that the EU adopted a de facto, across-the-board moratorium on the final 

approval of biotechnological products, starting in 1999 up through the time the panel was 

established in August 2003. 

 The panel found that the EU had presented no scientific or regulatory justification for the 

moratorium, and thus that the moratorium resulted in “undue delays” in violation of the EU’s 

obligations under the SPS Agreement. 

 The panel identified specific, WTO-inconsistent “undue delays” with regard to 24 of the 27 

pending product applications that were listed in the U.S. panel request. 

 The panel upheld the United States’ claims that, in light of positive safety assessments issued by 

the EU’s own scientists, the bans adopted by six EU Member States on products approved in the 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 78 

 

EU prior to the moratorium were not supported by scientific evidence, and were thus inconsistent 

with WTO rules. 

The DSB adopted the panel report on November 21, 2006. At the meeting of the DSB held on December 

19, 2006, the EU notified the DSB that the EU intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of 

the DSB in these disputes, and stated that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation. 

On June 21, 2006, the United States, Argentina, and Canada notified the DSB that they had agreed with 

the EU on a one-year period of time for implementation, to end on November 21, 2007. On November 

21, 2007, the United States, Argentina, and Canada notified the DSB that they had agreed with the EU to 

extend the implementation period to January 11, 2008. 

On January 17, 2008, the United States submitted a request for authorization to suspend concessions and 

other obligations with respect to the EU under the covered agreements at an annual level equivalent to the 

annual level of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to the United States resulting from the 

EU’s failure to bring measures concerning the approval and marketing of biotechnology products into 

compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On February 6, 2008, the EU requested 

arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, claiming that the level of suspension proposed by the United 

States was not equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment. The EU and the United States 

mutually agreed to suspend the Article 22.6 arbitration proceedings as of February 18, 2008. The United 

States may request resumption of the proceedings following a finding by the DSB that the EU has not 

complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 

European Union–Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 

of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS27): 

On June 29, 2007, the United States requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU 

to review whether the EU has failed to bring its import regime for bananas into compliance with its WTO 

obligations and the DSB recommendations and rulings adopted on September 25, 1997. The request 

relates to the EU=s apparent failure to implement the WTO rulings in a proceeding initiated by Ecuador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and the United States. That proceeding resulted in findings that the EU=s 

banana regime discriminates against bananas originating in Latin American countries and against 

distributors of such bananas, including a number of U.S. companies. The EU was under an obligation to 

bring its banana regime into compliance with its WTO obligations by January 1999. The EU committed 

to shift to a tariff-only regime for bananas no later than January 1, 2006. Despite these commitments, the 

banana regime implemented by the EU on January 1, 2006 includes a zero-duty tariff-rate quota allocated 

exclusively to bananas from African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. All other bananas do not have 

access to this duty-free tariff rate quota and are subject to a 176 euro per ton duty. The United States 

believes that this new regime is in violation of GATT Articles I:1 and XIII. 

Ecuador requested the establishment of a similar compliance panel on February 23, 2007, and a panel was 

composed in response to that request on June 15. The panel in response to the United States request was 

established on July 12, 2007. On August 13, 2007, the Director General composed the panel as follows: 

Mr. Christian Häberli, Chair; and Mr. Kym Anderson and Mr. Yuqing Zhang, members. Mr. Häberli and 

Mr. Anderson were members of the original panel in this dispute. 

The panel granted the parties’ request to open the substantive meeting with the parties, as well as a 

portion of the third-party session, to the public. The public observed these meetings from a gallery in the 

room in which the meetings were conducted. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 79 

The panel issued its report on May 19, 2008. The panel agreed with the United States that the EC’s 

regime was inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under Articles I:1, XIII:1, and XIII:2 of the GATT 

1994, and that the EU had failed to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 

On August 28, 2008, the EU filed a notice of appeal. The Appellate Body granted a joint request by the 

parties to open its hearing to the public, and the public was able to observe the hearing via a closed-circuit 

television broadcast. The Appellate Body issued its report on November 26, 2008. The Appellate Body 

found that the EU has failed to bring itself into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the 

DSB. In particular, the Appellate Body rejected all of the EC’s procedural arguments alleging the United 

States was barred from bringing the compliance proceeding, and agreed with the panel that the EC’s dutyfree tariff rate quota reserved only for some countries was inconsistent with Article XIII of the GATT 

1994. The panel in this dispute had also found that the EC’s banana import regime was in violation of 

GATT Article I. The EU did not appeal that finding. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report on 

December 22, 2008. 

On December 15, 2009, the United States and the EU initialed an agreement designed to lead to 

settlement of the dispute. In the agreement, the EU undertakes not to reintroduce measures that 

discriminate among bananas distributors based on the ownership or control of the distributor or the source 

of the bananas, and to maintain a non-discriminatory, tariff-only regime for the importation of bananas. 

The U.S.-EU agreement complements an agreement initialed on the same date between the EU and 

several Latin American banana-supplying countries (the GATB). That agreement provides for staged EU 

tariff cuts that will bring the EU into compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreement. It is 

intended that the two agreements will be signed at a later day and will enter into force following 

completion of certain domestic procedures. Upon entry in force, the EU will need to request formal WTO 

certification of its new tariffs on bananas. The GATB provides that once the certification process is 

concluded, the EU and the Latin American signatories to the GATB will settle their disputes and claims. 

Once that has occurred, the United States will also settle its dispute with the EU. 

European Union–Subsidies on large civil aircraft (DS316): 

On October 6, 2004, the United States requested consultations with the EU, as well as with Germany, 

France, the United Kingdom, and Spain, with respect to subsidies provided to Airbus, a manufacturer of 

large civil aircraft. The United States alleged that such subsidies violated various provisions of the SCM 

Agreement, as well as Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994. Consultations were held on November 4, 2004. 

On January 11, 2005, the United States and the EU agreed to a framework for the negotiation of a new 

agreement to end subsidies for large civil aircraft. The parties set a three-month time frame for the 

negotiations and agreed that, during negotiations, they would not request panel proceedings. 

The United States and the EU were unable to reach an agreement within the 90-day time frame. 

Therefore, the United States filed a request for a panel on May 31, 2005. The panel was established on 

July 20, 2005. The U.S. request challenges several types of EU subsidies that appear to be prohibited, 

actionable, or both. 

On October 17, 2005, the Deputy Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Carlos Pérez del 

Castillo, Chair; and Mr. John Adank and Mr. Thinus Jacobsz, Members. The panel met with the parties 

on March 20-21 and July 25-26, 2007, and met with the parties and third parties on July 24, 2007. The 

panel granted the parties’ request to hold part of its meetings with the parties in public session. This 

portion of the panel’s meetings was videotaped, and reviewed by the parties to ensure that business 

confidential information had not been disclosed, before being shown in public on March 22 and July 27, 

2007. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 80 

 

European Communities–Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products (WT/DS375):

On May 28, 2008, the United States requested consultations with the EU and its Member States regarding 

the tariff treatment accorded to set-top boxes with a communication function, flat panel displays, “input 

or output units,” and facsimile machines. The United States is concerned that certain EU measures appear 

to have resulted in the imposition of duties on these products. As a result of the Information Technology 

Agreement (ITA), the EU and its Member States, in their Schedules of Concessions to the GATT 1994, 

committed to provide duty-free treatment for these products. 

The measures in question appear to be inconsistent with the obligations of the EU and its Member States 

under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. In addition, certain of the actions taken by the EU 

with respect to set-top boxes appear to be inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under GATT 1994 

Articles X:1 and X:2. 

Japan and Chinese Taipei (on May 28, 2008, and June 12, 2008, respectively) also filed requests for 

consultations with the EU and its Member States on these measures. On August 18, the United States, 

Japan and Chinese Taipei jointly requested the establishment of a panel. A panel was established at the 

meeting of the DSB on September 23, 2008. On January 22, 2009, the Director-General composed the 

panel as follows: Mr. Wilhelm Meier, Chair, and Mr. David Evans and Ms. Valerie Hughes, Members. 

The panel met with the parties on May 12 and 14, 2009 and on July 9, 2009, and met with the parties and 

third parties on May 13, 2009. Pursuant to the parties’ request, the meetings with the parties, as well as a 

portion of the third-party session, were open for public observation. 

Turkey–Measures affecting the importation of rice (DS334): 

On November 2, 2005, the United States requested consultations regarding Turkey’s import licensing 

system and domestic purchase requirement with respect to the importation of rice. By conditioning the 

issuance of import licenses to import at preferential tariff levels upon the purchase of domestic rice, not 

permitting imports at the bound rate, and implementing a de facto ban on rice imports during the Turkish 

rice harvest, Turkey appeared to be acting inconsistently with several WTO agreements, including the 

Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS), the GATT 1994, the Agreement on 

Agriculture, and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Consultations were held on December 

1, 2005. The United States requested the establishment of a panel on February 6, 2006, and the DSB 

established a panel on March 17, 2006. On July 31, 2006, the Director-General composed the panel as 

follows: Ms. Marie-Gabrielle Ineichen-Fleisch, Chair, Mr. Yoichi Suzuki and Mr. Johann Frederick 

Kirsten, Members. The final report of the panel was circulated to WTO Members and made public on 

September 21, 2007. In the final report, the panel found that the system by which Turkey decided to 

deny, or fail to grant, certain certificates required for importing rice outside the tariff rate quota from 

September 2003 and at certain periods thereafter, constituted a quantitative import restriction as well as a 

practice of discretionary import licensing inconsistent with Turkey’s obligations under Article 4.2 of the 

Agreement on Agriculture. The panel also found that Turkey’s domestic purchase requirement for rice 

imports accorded less favorable treatment to imported rice than domestic rice and was therefore 

inconsistent with Turkey’s national treatment obligations under Article III: 4 of the GATT 1994. The 

panel report was adopted by the DSB on October 22, 2007. Turkey informed the DSB at the end of 

November 2007 that it was in the process of implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 

in this dispute and that it preserved its rights to a reasonable period of time (RPT) for such 

implementation. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 81 

The United States and Turkey came to an agreement that the reasonable period of time would be six 

months, expiring on April 22, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the United States and Turkey entered into a 

sequencing agreement with respect to the procedures that will apply if the United States seeks to establish 

a compliance panel or seeks to suspend concessions or other obligations to Turkey in connection with this 

dispute. 

European Communities–Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Products from the 

United States (DS389):

On January 16, 2009, the United States requested consultations regarding certain EU measures that 

prohibit the import of poultry meat and poultry meat products that have been processed with chemical 

treatments designed to reduce the amount of microbes on poultry meat, unless such pathogen reduction 

treatments (“PRTs”) have been approved. The EU further prohibits the marketing of poultry meat and 

poultry meat products if they have been processed with PRTs. In December 2008, the EU formally 

rejected the approval of four PRTs whose approval had been requested by the United States, despite the 

fact that EU scientists have repeatedly concluded that poultry meat and poultry meat products treated with 

any of these four PRTs does not present a health risk to European consumers. The EU’s maintenance of 

its import ban and marketing regulation against PRT poultry appears to be inconsistent with its 

obligations under the SPS Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, the GATT 1994, and the TBT 

Agreement. Consultations were held on February 11, 2009, but those consultations failed to resolve the 

dispute. The United States requested the establishment of a panel on October 8, 2009, and the DSB 

established a panel on November 19, 2009. 

China–Measures Relating to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (WT/DS394):

On June 23, 2009, the United States requested consultations with China regarding China’s export 

restraints on a number of important raw materials. The materials at issue are: bauxite, coke, fluorspar, 

magnesium, manganese, silicon metal, silicon carbide, yellow phosphorus, and zinc. These materials are 

inputs for numerous downstream products in the steel, aluminum, and chemical sectors. 

Specifically, the United States is concerned that certain Chinese measures: (1) impose quantitative 

restrictions in the form of quotas on exports of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, silicon carbide, and zinc ores and 

concentrates, as well as certain intermediate products incorporating some of these inputs; (2) impose 

export duties on several raw materials; and (3) impose other export restrictions through its export 

procedures, including via certain charges (unrelated to any services rendered) that must be paid before 

certain products can be exported. The United States is also concerned that China administers its export 

procedures unfairly in other respects, including, for example, by not publishing relevant measures in a 

manner that allows them to be readily available to governments and traders. The measures at issue appear 

to be inconsistent with several WTO provisions, including provisions in the General Agreement on Tariffs 

and Trade 1994, as well as specific commitments made by China in its WTO accession agreement. 

The United States and China held consultations on September 1-2, 2009, but they did not resolve the 

dispute. The European Communities and Mexico have also requested and held consultations with China 

on these measures. 

On November 19, 2009, the European Communities and Mexico joined the United States in requesting 

the establishment of a panel, and on December 21, 2009, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body established a 

single panel to examine all three complaints. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 82 

 

b. Disputes Brought Against the United States 

Section 124 of the URAA requires, inter alia, that the Annual Report on the WTO describe, for the 

preceding fiscal year of the WTO: each proceeding before a panel or the Appellate Body that was 

initiated during that fiscal year regarding Federal or State law, the status of the proceeding, and the matter 

at issue; and each report issued by a panel or the Appellate Body in a dispute settlement proceeding 

regarding Federal or State law. This section includes summaries of dispute settlement activity in 2009 in 

which the United States was a responding party. 

United States–Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act (DS160): 

As amended in 1998 by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act 

exempts certain retail and restaurant establishments that play radio or television music from paying 

royalties to songwriters and music publishers. The EU claimed that, as a result of this exception, the 

United States was in violation of its TRIPS obligations. Consultations with the EU took place on March 

2, 1999. A panel on this matter was established on May 26, 1999. On August 6, 1999, the DirectorGeneral composed the panel as follows: Ms. Carmen Luz Guarda, Chair, Mr. Arumugamangalam V. 

Ganesan and Mr. Ian F. Sheppard, Members. The panel issued its final report on June 15, 2000, and 

found that one of the two exemptions provided by section 110(5) is inconsistent with the U.S. WTO 

obligations. The panel report was adopted by the DSB on July 27, 2000, and the United States has 

informed the DSB of its intention to respect its WTO obligations. On October 23, 2000, the EU requested 

arbitration to determine the period of time to be given the United States to implement the panel’s 

recommendation. By mutual agreement of the parties, Mr. J. Lacarte-Muró was appointed to serve as 

arbitrator. He determined that the deadline for implementation should be July 27, 2001. On July 24, 

2001, the DSB approved a U.S. proposal to extend the deadline until the earlier of the end of the thencurrent session of the U.S. Congress or December 31, 2001. 

On July 23, 2001, the United States and the EU requested arbitration to determine the level of 

nullification or impairment of benefits to the EU as a result of section 110(5) (B). In a decision circulated 

to WTO Members on November 9, 2001, the arbitrators determined that the value of the benefits lost to 

the EU in this case is $1.1 million per year. On January 7, 2002, the EU sought authorization from the 

DSB to suspend obligations vis-a-vis the United States. The United States objected to the details of the 

EU request, thereby causing the matter to be referred to arbitration. 

 

However, because the United States and the EU have been engaged in discussions to find a mutually 

acceptable resolution of the dispute, the arbitrators suspended the proceeding pursuant to a joint request 

by the parties filed on February 26, 2002. 

On June 23, 2003, the United States and the EU notified the WTO of a mutually satisfactory temporary 

arrangement regarding the dispute. Pursuant to this arrangement, the United States made a lump-sum 

payment of $3.3 million to the EU, to a fund established to finance activities of general interest to music 

copyright holders, in particular awareness-raising campaigns at the national and international level and 

activities to combat piracy in the digital network. The arrangement covered a three-year period, which 

ended on December 21, 2004. 

United States–Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act (DS176): 

Section 211 addresses the ability to register or enforce, without the consent of previous owners, 

trademarks or trade names associated with businesses confiscated without compensation by the Cuban 

government. The EU questioned the consistency of Section 211 with the TRIPS Agreement, and 
II. The World Trade Organization | 83 

requested consultations on July 7, 1999. Consultations were held September 13 and December 13, 1999. 

On June 30, 2000, the EU requested a panel. A panel was established on September 26, 2000, and at the 

request of the EU the WTO Director-General composed the panel on October 26, 2000. The DirectorGeneral composed the panel as follows: Mr. Wade Armstrong, Chair; Mr. François Dessemontet; and Mr. 

Armand de Mestral, Members. The panel report was circulated on August 6, 2001, rejecting 13 of the 

EU’s 14 claims and finding that, in most respects, section 211 is not inconsistent with the obligations of 

the United States under the TRIPS Agreement. The EU appealed the decision on October 4, 2001. The 

Appellate Body issued its report on January 2, 2002. 

The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s one finding against the United States, and upheld the panel’s 

favorable findings that WTO Members are entitled to determine trademark and trade name ownership 

criteria. The Appellate Body found certain instances, however, in which section 211 might breach the 

national treatment and most favored nation obligations of the TRIPS Agreement. The panel and 

Appellate Body reports were adopted on February 1, 2002, and the United States informed the DSB of its 

intention to implement the recommendations and rulings. The reasonable period of time for 

implementation ended on June 30, 2005. On June 30, 2005, the United States and the EU agreed that the 

EU would not request authorization to suspend concessions at that time, and that the United States would 

not object to a future request on grounds of lack of timeliness. 

United States–Antidumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan (DS184): 

Japan alleged that the preliminary and final determinations of the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in their antidumping investigations 

of certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan, issued on November 25 and 30, 1998, February 12, 1999, 

April 28, 1999, and June 23, 1999, were erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the U.S. 

Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan claimed that these procedures and regulations violate 

the GATT 1994, as well as the Antidumping Agreement and the Agreement Establishing the WTO. 

Consultations were held on January 13, 2000, and a panel was established on March 20, 2000. In May 

2000, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Harsha V. Singh, Chair, Mr. Yanyong 

Phuangrach and Ms. Lidia di Vico, Members. On February 28, 2001, the panel circulated its report, in 

which it rejected most of Japan’s claims, but found that, inter alia, particular aspects of the antidumping 

duty calculation, as well as one aspect of the U.S. antidumping duty law, were inconsistent with the WTO 

Antidumping Agreement. On April 25, 2001, the United States filed a notice of appeal on certain issues 

in the panel report. 

The Appellate Body report was issued on July 24, 2001, reversing in part and affirming in part. The 

reports were adopted on August 23, 2001. Pursuant to a February 19, 2002, arbitral award, the United 

States was given 15 months, or until November 23, 2002, to implement the DSB’s recommendations and 

rulings. On November 22, 2002, Commerce issued a new final determination in the hot-rolled steel 

antidumping duty investigation, which implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with 

respect to the calculation of antidumping margins in that investigation. The reasonable period of time 

ended on July 31, 2005. With respect to the outstanding implementation issue, on July 7, 2005, the 

United States and Japan agreed that Japan would not request authorization to suspend concessions at that 

time and that the United States would not object to a future request on grounds of lack of timeliness. 

 

United States–Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) (DS217/234): 

On December 21, 2000, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand 

requested consultations with the United States regarding the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 

of 2000 (19 U.S.C. § 754), which amended Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to transfer import duties 

collected under U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty orders from the U.S. Treasury to the companies 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 84 

 

that filed the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions. Consultations were held on February 6, 

2001. On May 21, 2001, Canada and Mexico also requested consultations on the same matter, which 

were held on June 29, 2001. On July 12, 2001, the original nine complaining parties requested the 

establishment of a panel, which was established on August 23, 2001. On September 10, 2001, a panel 

was established at the request of Canada and Mexico, and all complaints were consolidated into one 

panel. The panel was composed of: Mr. Luzius Wasescha, Chair, and Mr. Maamoun Abdel-Fattah and 

Mr. William Falconer, Members. 

The panel issued its report on September 2, 2002, finding against the United States on three of the five 

principal claims brought by the complaining parties. Specifically, the panel found that the CDSOA 

constitutes a specific action against dumping and subsidies and, therefore, is inconsistent with the WTO 

Antidumping and SCM Agreements as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994. The panel also found that 

the CDSOA distorts the standing determination conducted by Commerce and, therefore, is inconsistent 

with the standing provisions in the Antidumping and SCM Agreements. The United States prevailed 

against the complainants’ claims under the Antidumping and SCM Agreements that the CDSOA distorts 

Commerce’s consideration of price undertakings (agreements to settle antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigations). The panel also rejected Mexico’s actionable subsidy claim brought under the SCM 

Agreement. Finally, the panel rejected the complainants’ claims under Article X: 3 of the GATT, Article 

15 of the Antidumping Agreement, and Articles 4.10 and 7.9 of the SCM Agreement. The United States 

appealed the panel’s adverse findings on October 1, 2002. 

The Appellate Body issued its report on January 16, 2003, upholding the panel’s finding that the CDSOA 

is an impermissible action against dumping and subsidies, but reversing the panel’s finding on standing. 

The DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports on January 27, 2003. At the meeting, the United 

States stated its intention to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings. On March 14, 2003, the 

complaining parties requested arbitration to determine a reasonable period of time for U.S. 

implementation. On June 13, 2003, the arbitrator determined that this period would end on December 27, 

2003. On June 19, 2003, legislation to bring the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act into 

conformity with U.S. obligations under the Antidumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the GATT 

of 1994 was introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 1299). 

 

On January 15, 2004, eight complaining parties (Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EU, India, Japan, Korea, and 

Mexico) requested WTO authorization to retaliate. The remaining three complaining parties (Australia, 

Indonesia and Thailand) agreed to extend to December 27, 2004, the period of time in which the United 

States had to comply with the WTO rulings and recommendations in this dispute. On January 23, 2004, 

the United States objected to the requests from the eight complaining parties to retaliate, thereby referring 

the matter to arbitration. On August 31, 2004, the Arbitrators issued their awards in each of the eight 

arbitrations. They determined that each complaining party could retaliate, on a yearly basis, covering the 

total value of trade not exceeding, in U.S. dollars, the amount resulting from the following equation: 

amount of disbursements under CDSOA for the most recent year for which data are available relating to 

antidumping or countervailing duties paid on imports from each party at that time, as published by the 

U.S. authorities, multiplied by 0.72. 

Based on requests from Brazil, the EU, India, Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico, on November 26, 2004, 

the DSB granted these Members authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations, as provided in 

DSU Article 22.7 and in the Decisions of the Arbitrators. The DSB granted Chile authorization to 

suspend concessions or other obligations on December 17, 2004. On December 23, 2004, January 7, 

2005 and January 11, 2005, the United States reached agreements with Australia, Thailand and Indonesia 

that these three complaining parties would not request authorization to suspend concessions at that time, 

and that the United States would not object to a future request on grounds of lack of timeliness. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 85 

On May 1, 2005, Canada and the EU began imposing additional duties of 15 percent on a list of products 

from the United States. On August 18, 2005, Mexico began imposing additional duties ranging from 9 to 

30 percent on a list of U.S. products. On September 1, 2005, Japan began imposing additional duties of 

15 percent on a list of U.S. products. 

On February 8, 2006, the President signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law. That Act includes a 

provision repealing the CDSOA. Certain of the complaining parties nevertheless continued to impose 

retaliatory measures because they considered that the Deficit Reduction Act failed to bring the United 

States into immediate compliance. Thus, on May 1, 2006, the EU renewed its retaliatory measure and 

added eight products to the list of targeted imports. Japan renewed its retaliatory measure on September 

1, 2006, retaining the same list of targeted imports. Mexico adopted a new retaliatory measure on 

September 14, 2006, imposing duties of 110 percent on certain dairy products through October 31, 2006. 

After that date, Mexico has taken no further retaliatory measures. Canada did not renew its retaliatory 

measures once they expired on April 30, 2006. 

Since 2007, only the EU and Japan have maintained retaliatory measures against the United States in 

connection with this dispute. On April 17, 2007, the EU announced that it would renew its retaliatory 

measure as of May 1, 2007, adding 32 more products to the 2006 list. The EU renewed its retaliatory 

measure again on April 3, 2008, removing 30 products from the 2007 list. On May 1, 2009, the EU 

renewed its 15 percent retaliatory measure but removed fourteen tariff headings from its retaliation list. 

On September 1, 2007, Japan once again renewed its retaliatory duties. On August 22, 2008, Japan 

announced that it would renew its retaliatory duties, but those duties would cover only ball bearings and 

tapered roller bearings, in contrast to the list of 15 products covered in the previous year. Effective 

September 1, 2009, Japan maintained its retaliatory duties on the same two products from the United 

States, but at a reduced rate of 9.6 percent. 

United States–Subsidies on upland cotton (DS267): 

On September 27, 2002, Brazil requested WTO consultations pursuant to Articles 4.1, 7.1, and 30 of the 

SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the Antidumping Agreement, and Article 4 of the DSU. The Brazilian 

consultation request on U.S. support measures that benefit upland cotton claimed that these alleged 

subsidies and measures are inconsistent with U.S. commitments and obligations under the SCM 

Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the GATT 1994. Consultations were held on December 

3, 4, and 19, 2002, and January 17, 2003. 

On February 6, 2003, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. Brazil’s panel request pertained to 

“prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to U.S. producers, users and/or exporters of upland cotton, 

as well as legislation, regulations and statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such 

subsidies (including export credit guarantees), grants, and any other assistance to the U.S. producers, 

users and exporters of upland cotton” [footnote omitted]. The DSB established the panel on March 18, 

2003. On May 19, 2003, the Director-General appointed as panelists: Mr. Dariusz Rosati, Chair; Mr. 

Daniel Moulis and Mr. Mario Matus, Members. 

On September 8, 2004, the panel circulated its report to all WTO Members and the public. The panel 

made some findings in favor of Brazil on certain of its claims and other findings in favor of the United 

States: 

 The panel found that the “Peace Clause” in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture did not apply to a 

number of U.S. measures, including: (1) domestic support measures; and (2) export credit guarantees 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 86 

 

for “unscheduled commodities” and rice (a “scheduled commodity”). Therefore, Brazil could 

proceed with certain of its challenges. 

 The panel found that the GSM 102, GSM 103, and SCGP export credit guarantees for “unscheduled 

commodities” (such as cotton and soybeans) and for rice are prohibited export subsidies. However, 

the panel also found that Brazil had not demonstrated that the guarantees for other “scheduled 

commodities” exceeded U.S. WTO reduction commitments and therefore breached the Peace Clause. 

Further, Brazil had not demonstrated that the programs threaten to lead to circumvention of U.S. 

WTO reduction commitments for other “scheduled commodities” and for “unscheduled 

commodities” not currently receiving guarantees. 

 Some U.S. domestic support programs (i.e., marketing loan, countercyclical, market loss assistance, 

and so-called “Step 2 payments,”) were found to cause significant suppression of cotton prices in the 

world market in marketing years 1999-2002, causing serious prejudice to Brazil’s interests. 

However, the panel found that other U.S. domestic support programs (i.e., production flexibility 

contract payments, direct payments, and crop insurance payments) did not cause serious prejudice to 

Brazil’s interests because Brazil failed to show that these programs caused significant price 

suppression. The panel also found that Brazil failed to show that any U.S. program caused an 

increase in U.S. world market share for upland cotton constituting serious prejudice. 

 The panel did not reach Brazil’s claim that U.S. domestic support programs threatened to cause 

serious prejudice to Brazil’s interests in marketing years 2003-2007. The panel also did not reach 

Brazil’s claim that U.S. domestic support programs per se cause serious prejudice in those years. 

 The panel also found that Brazil had failed to establish that FSC/ETI tax benefits for cotton exporters 

were prohibited export subsidies. 

 Finally, the panel found that Step 2 payments to exporters of cotton are prohibited export subsidies 

not protected by the Peace Clause, and Step 2 payments to domestic users are prohibited import 

substitution subsidies because they were only made for U.S. cotton. 

On October 18, 2004, the United States filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Body; Brazil then 

cross-appealed. The Appellate Body circulated its report on March 3, 2005. The Appellate Body upheld 

the panel’s findings appealed by the United States. 

The Appellate Body also rejected or declined to rule on most of Brazil’s appeal issues. On March 21, 

2005, the DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports and, on April 20, 2005, the United States 

advised the DSB that it intends to bring its measures into compliance. 

On June 30, 2005, the United States announced that it would cease to issue GSM 103 export credit 

guarantees, and that it was instituting a new fee structure for the GSM 102 export credit guarantee 

program. Further, on July 5, the United States proposed legislation relating to the export credit guarantee 

and Step 2 programs. On July 5, 2005, Brazil requested authorization to impose countermeasures and 

suspend concessions in connection with the prohibited export subsidies findings. On July 14, 2005, the 

United States objected to the request, thereby referring the matter to arbitration. On August 17, 2005, the 

United States and Brazil agreed to suspend the arbitration. On October 1, 2005, the United States ceased 

to issue export credit guarantees under the SCGP. On October 6, 2005, Brazil made a separate request for 

authorization to impose countermeasures and suspend concessions in connection with the “serious 

prejudice” findings. The United States objected to Brazil’s request on October 17, 2005, thereby also 
II. The World Trade Organization | 87 

referring that matter to arbitration. On November 21, 2005, the United States and Brazil agreed to 

suspend the arbitration. 

On February 8, 2006, the President signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. That Act includes 

a provision repealing the Step 2 program as of August 2006. 

On August 18, 2006, Brazil requested the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel. On September 28, 2006, 

the DSB established a panel to consider Brazil’s claims. On October 25, 2006, the Director-General 

composed the panel as follows: Mr. Eduardo Pérez Motta, Chair; and Mr. Mario Matus and Mr. HoYoung Ahn, Members. On December 18, 2007, the Article 21.5 panel circulated its report. The panel 

found, inter alia, that: (1) U.S. export credit guarantees issued under the modified GSM 102 program 

with respect to unscheduled and certain scheduled (rice, pig and poultry meat) commodities constituted 

prohibited export subsidies; and (2) U.S. marketing loan and countercyclical payments for upland cotton 

were continuing to cause serious prejudice to Brazil by significantly suppressing world upland cotton 

prices. The panel rejected Brazil’s claim that payments under the marketing loan and countercyclical 

payment programs were responsible for an increase in U.S. market share in MY 2005 and thereby caused 

serious prejudice to Brazil’s interests. The panel also found that the United States was not required to 

have refused to perform on export credit guarantees that were issued prior to the deadline for the 

implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings as to such guarantees (July 1, 2005) and that 

were still outstanding as of that date. 

The United States appealed the compliance panel’s adverse findings on February 12, 2008. Brazil filed 

its notice of other appeal on February 25, 2008. The Appellate Body issued its report on June 2, 2008. 

The Appellate Body issued its report on June 2, 2008, in which it: 

 upheld the compliance panel’s finding that U.S. marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments 

cause significant price suppression in the market for upland cotton, thereby constituting present 

serious prejudice to Brazil; 

 while agreeing with the United States that the compliance panel erred in dismissing U.S. 

Government budgetary data showing that U.S. export credit guarantee programs operate at a 

profit, nonetheless upheld the compliance panel’s ultimate finding that GSM 102 export credit 

guarantees with respect to unscheduled products and certain scheduled products (rice, pig meat, 

poultry meat) were prohibited export subsidies; and 

 upheld the compliance panel’s finding that Brazil’s claims as to marketing loan and 

countercyclical payments made after September 21, 2005, and Brazil’s claims as to GSM 102 

guarantees for exports of pig meat and poultry meat, were within the scope of the compliance 

proceeding. 

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report, and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 

report, on June 20, 2008. 

Brazil requested resumption of the arbitration process on August 25, 2008. On October 1, 2008, the 

United States and Brazil agreed that the arbitration would be carried out by the following individuals: Mr. 

Eduardo Pérez-Motta, Chair; and Mr. Alan Matthews and Mr. Daniel Moulis, Members. The meetings 

with the Arbitrators were held March 2-4, 2009. 

The Arbitrators issued their awards on August 31, 2009. They issued one award concerning U.S. 

subsidies found to cause serious prejudice to Brazil’s interests (marketing loan and countercyclical 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 88 

 

payments for cotton), and another award concerning U.S. subsidies found to be prohibited export 

subsidies (export credit guarantees under the GSM 102 program for a range of agricultural products, plus 

the repealed “Step 2” program for cotton). 

The Arbitrators found that Brazil may impose countermeasures against U.S. trade: 

(1) for marketing loan and countercyclical payments for cotton, in an annual fixed amount of $147.3 

million; and 

(2) for export credit guarantees under the GSM 102 program, in an annual amount that may change 

each year based on a formula. 

The Arbitrators rejected Brazil’s request for countermeasures for the Step 2 program. 

The Arbitrators also found that, in the event that the total level of countermeasures that Brazil would be 

entitled to in a given year should increase to a level that would exceed a threshold based on a subset of 

Brazil’s consumer goods imports from the United States, then Brazil would also be entitled to suspend 

certain obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and/or the GATS with respect to any amount of 

permissible countermeasures applied in excess of that figure. 

 

On September 25, 2009, Brazil requested data from the United States for 2008 and 2009 to calculate 

countermeasures according to the formula in the Arbitrator’s award. On November 19, the United States 

provided Brazil the data requested for 2008 and stated that it would provide 2009 data when they are 

complete. 

On November 19, 2009, the WTO DSB granted Brazil authorization to suspend the application to the 

United States of concessions or other obligations consistent with the Arbitrators’ awards. 

United States–Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS285): 

On March 13, 2003, Antigua & Barbuda (“Antigua”) requested consultations regarding its claim that U.S. 

federal, state and territorial laws on gambling violate U.S. specific commitments under the GATS, as well 

as Articles VI, XI, XVI, and XVII of the GATS, to the extent that such laws prevent or can prevent 

operators from Antigua from lawfully offering gambling and betting services in the United States. 

Consultations were held on April 30, 2003. 

Antigua requested the establishment of a panel on June 12, 2003. The DSB established a panel on July 

21, 2003. At the request of the Antigua, the WTO Director-General composed the panel on August 25, 

2003, as follows: Mr. B. K. Zutshi, Chair; and Mr. Virachai Plasai and Mr. Richard Plender, Members. 

The panel’s final report, circulated on November 10, 2004, found that the United States breached Article 

XVI (Market Access) of the GATS by maintaining three U.S. federal laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 1084, 1952, and 

1955) and certain statutes of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota, and Utah. It also found that these 

measures were not justified under exceptions in Article XIV of the GATS. 

The United States filed a notice of appeal on January 7, 2005. The Appellate Body issued its report on 

April 7, 2005, in which it reversed and/or modified several panel findings. The Appellate Body 

overturned the panel’s findings regarding the state statutes, and found that the three U.S. federal gambling 

laws at issue “fall within the scope of ‘public morals’ and/or ‘public order’” under Article XIV. To meet 

the requirements of the Article XIV chapeau, the Appellate Body found that the United States needed to 

clarify an issue concerning Internet gambling on horse racing. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 89 

The DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports on April 20, 2005. On May 19, 2005, the United 

States stated its intention to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings. On August 19, 2005, an 

Article 21.3(c) arbitrator determined that the reasonable period of time for implementation would expire 

on April 3, 2006. 

At the DSB meeting of April 21, 2006, the United States informed the DSB that the United States was in 

compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the dispute. On June 8, 2006, Antigua 

requested consultations with the United States regarding U.S. compliance with the DSB recommendations 

and rulings. The parties held consultations on June 26, 2006. On July 5, 2006, Antigua requested the 

DSB to establish a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, and a panel was established on July 19, 

2006. The chair of the original panel and one of the panelists were unavailable to serve. The parties 

agreed on their replacements, and the panel was composed as follows: Mr. Lars Anell, Chair; and Mr. 

Mathias Francke and Mr. Virachai Plasai, Members. The report of the Article 21.5 panel, which was 

circulated on March 30, 2007, found that the United States had not complied with the recommendations 

and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. 

On May 4, 2007, the United States initiated the procedure provided for under Article XXI of the GATS to 

modify the schedule of U.S. commitments so as to reflect the original U.S. intent of excluding gambling 

and betting services. 

The DSB adopted the report of the Article 21.5 panel on May 22, 2007. On June 21, 2007, Antigua 

submitted a request, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, for authorization from the DSB to suspend the 

application to the United States of concessions and related obligations of Antigua under the GATS and 

the TRIPS. On July 23, 2007, the United States referred this matter to arbitration under Article 22.6 of 

the DSU. The arbitration was carried out by the three panelists who served on the Article 21.5 panel. 

On December 21, 2007, the Article 22.6 arbitration award was circulated. The arbitrator concluded that 

Antigua’s annual level of nullification or impairment of benefits is $21 million, and that Antigua may 

request authorization from the DSB to suspend its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement in this 

amount. 

During 2007 and early 2008, the United States reached agreement with every WTO Member, aside from 

Antigua, that had pursued a claim of interest in the GATS Article XXI process of modifying the U.S. 

schedule of GATS commitments so as to exclude gambling and betting services. Throughout 2009, 

Antigua and the United States continued in their efforts to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution to this 

matter. 

United States–Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins (“zeroing”) 

(DS294): 

On June 12, 2003, the EU requested consultations regarding the use of “zeroing” in the calculation of 

dumping margins. Consultations were held July 17, 2003. The EU requested further consultations on 

September 8, 2003. Consultations were held October 6, 2003. The EU requested the establishment of a 

panel on February 5, 2004, and the DSB established a panel on March 19, 2004. On October 27, 2004, 

the panel was composed as follows: Mr. Crawford Falconer, Chair; and Mr. Hans-Friedrich Beseler and 

Mr. William Davey, Members. The panel issued its report on October 31, 2005, finding that Commerce’s 

use of “zeroing” in antidumping investigations is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO, but 

rejecting the EU’s claims that zeroing in other phases of antidumping proceedings is also inconsistent. 

On January 17, 2006, the EU appealed the panel report. The Appellate Body issued its report on April 18, 

2006. In its report, the Appellate Body upheld the panel’s finding that the U.S. “methodology” of zeroing 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 90 

 

in average-to-average comparisons in investigations is subject to challenge “as such,” and that such 

methodology is inconsistent with the Antidumping Agreement. The Appellate Body also reversed the 

panel and found that the U.S. use of zeroing in certain assessment proceedings was also inconsistent with 

the Antidumping Agreement. The reasonable period of time for the United States to bring its measures 

into compliance expired on April 9, 2007. 

On July 9, 2007, the EU requested consultations with the United States concerning its compliance with 

the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The EU and the United States held consultations on July 

30, 2007. On September 13, 2007, the EU requested the establishment of a compliance panel, and on 

September 25, 2007, the panel was established. The following individuals were named by the DirectorGeneral to serve as the panelists: Mr. Felipe Jaramillo, Chair; and Ms. Usha Dwarka-Canabady and Mr. 

Scott Gallacher, members. Pursuant to a request by the parties, the panel agreed to open its meeting with 

the parties to public observation. 

The panel circulated its report on December 17, 2008. The panel found that the use of zeroing in two 

administrative reviews involving the orders related to measures in the original dispute amounted to a 

failure to comply with the DSB rulings and recommendations if the reviews were concluded after the end 

of the reasonable period of time, even if the reviews involved entries that occurred before the end of the 

reasonable period of time. The panel also found that the Section 129 determinations related to four 

original investigations in the original dispute violated Article 3 of the Antidumping Agreement because 

the ITC did not revisit its original injury determinations to account for the reduced volumes of dumped 

imports resulting from the exclusion of certain exporters from the orders as a result of the Section 129 

determinations. Finally, the panel found that the continued application of the cash deposit rate from one 

of the administrative reviews in the original dispute to one company that had not requested a new 

administrative review amounted to a failure to comply with the DSB rulings and recommendations. 

However, the panel rejected the EU claims that the liquidation of entries at rates determined using zeroing 

before the end of the reasonable period of time amounts to a failure to comply, even if such liquidation 

occurs after the end of the reasonable period of time. With respect to an alleged clerical error, the panel 

also found that the EU was prevented from raising a claim in a compliance proceeding because it could 

have done so in the original dispute and did not. The panel rejected or declined to make findings with 

respect to the EU’s other claims. 

On February 13, 2009, the EU filed a notice of appeal. The United States filed a notice of other appeal on 

February 25, 2009. The Appellate Body granted a request by the parties to open its hearing to the public, 

and the public was able to observe the hearing, which was held on March 23-24, 2009, via a simultaneous 

closed circuit television broadcast. 

The Appellate Body issued its report on May 14, 2009. The Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s findings 

with respect to three administrative reviews and found two additional administrative reviews, as well as 

several sunset reviews that relied on margins calculated in proceedings found WTO-inconsistent in the 

original dispute, to constitute failures to comply. The Appellate Body also indicated that, as a general 

matter, any use of zeroing in any proceeding completed after the end of the reasonable period of time, or 

in calculating any cash deposit applied after the end of the reasonable period of time, with respect to any 

of the antidumping orders for which an “as applied” finding was made in the original dispute, would 

constitute a failure to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings. With respect to the alleged 

clerical error, the Appellate Body reversed, concluding that the relevance of the alleged clerical error to 

the Section 129 determination was factual rather than jurisdictional, but it did not complete the analysis. 

The Appellate Body also rejected a number of the EU’s claims on appeal. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 91 

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report, and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 

report, on June 11, 2009. 

In addition to the three orders covered by the original panel and Appellate Body findings that had been 

revoked by 2007, four additional orders were revoked due to sunset reviews, effective prior to the end of 

the reasonable period of time. 

United States–Subsidies on large civil aircraft (DS317): 

On October 6, 2004, the EU requested consultations with respect to “prohibited and actionable subsidies 

provided to U.S. producers of large civil aircraft.” The EU alleged that such subsidies violated several 

provisions of the SCM Agreement, as well as Article III:4 of the GATT. Consultations were held on 

November 5, 2004. On January 11, 2005, the United States and the EU agreed to a framework for the 

negotiation of a new agreement to end subsidies for large civil aircraft. The parties set a three month 

timeframe for the negotiations and agreed that, during negotiations, they would not request panel 

proceedings. These discussions did not produce an agreement. On May 31, 2005, the EU requested the 

establishment of a panel to consider its claims. The EU filed a second request for consultations regarding 

large civil aircraft subsidies on June 27, 2005. This request covered many of the measures covered in the 

initial consultations, as well as many additional measures that were not covered. 

A panel was established with regard to the October claims on July 20, 2005. On October 17, 2005, the 

Deputy Director-General established the panel as follows: Ms. Marta Lucía Ramírez de Rincón, Chair; 

and Ms. Gloria Pea and Mr. David Unterhalter, Members. Since that time, Ms. Ramirez and Mr. 

Unterhalter resigned from the panel. They have not been replaced. 

The EU requested establishment of a panel with regard to its second panel request on January 20, 2006. 

That panel was established on February 17, 2006. On December 8, 2006, the WTO issued notices 

changing the designation of this panel to DS353. The summary below of United States–Subsidies on 

large civil aircraft (Second Complaint) (DS353) discusses developments with regard to this panel. 

United States–Continued suspension of obligations in the EU–Hormones dispute (DS320): 

On November 8, 2004, the EU requested consultations with respect to “the United States’ continued 

suspension of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements” in the EU – Hormones 

dispute. The EU argued that EU legislation of 2003 implementing the import ban on beef and beef 

products produced from animals treated with certain hormones brought the EU into compliance with its 

WTO obligations. Consultations were held on December 16, 2004. The EU requested the establishment 

of a panel on January 13, 2005, and the panel was established on February 17, 2005. Australia, Canada, 

China, Mexico, and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On June 6, 2005, the DirectorGeneral composed the panel as follows: Mr. Tae-yul Cho, Chair; and Ms. Claudia Orozco and Mr. 

William Ehlers, Members. The panel, in a communication dated August 1, 2005, granted the parties’ 

request to open the substantive meetings with the parties to the public via a closed-circuit television 

broadcast. The panel’s meetings with third parties remain closed. 

The panel circulated its final report on March 31, 2008. In its report, the panel found that the United 

States breached Articles 23.2(a) and 23.1 of the DSU by making certain statements at the meetings of the 

Dispute Settlement Body, and by maintaining the suspension of concessions after the EU had announced 

compliance. The panel also found that, because the EC’s revised ban of 2003 was not consistent with the 

SPS Agreement and had not been brought into compliance, the United States had not breached Article 

22.8 of the DSU. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 92 

 

The EU filed its notice of appeal in this dispute on May 29, 2008. The United States filed a notice of 

other appeal on June 10, 2008. The Appellate Body granted the parties’ request to open the hearing to the 

public via closed-circuit television broadcast. The oral hearing, which took place on July 28-29, 2008, 

was the first Appellate Body hearing ever to be open to the public. 

On October 16, 2008, the Appellate Body issued its report. The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s 

findings that the United States had breached Articles 23.2(a) and 23.1 of the DSU. The Appellate Body 

also reversed several of the panel’s findings relating to the SPS Agreement issues concerning the EU’s 

amended ban of 2003. The Appellate Body found that it could not conclude whether or not the EU’s 

amended ban is WTO-consistent. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report on November 14, 2008. 

As discussed above (DS26 and 38), on December 22, 2008, the EU requested consultations with the 

United States and Canada pursuant to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU, regarding the EU’s implementation 

of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in the EU–Hormones dispute. 

United States–Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews (DS322): 

On November 24, 2004, Japan requested consultations with respect to: (1) Commerce’s alleged practice 

of “zeroing” in antidumping investigations, administrative reviews, sunset reviews, and in assessing the 

final antidumping duty liability on entries upon liquidation; (2) in sunset reviews of antidumping duty 

orders, Commerce’s alleged irrefutable presumption of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 

dumping in certain factual situations; and (3) in sunset reviews, the waiver provisions of U.S. law. Japan 

claims that these alleged measures breach various provisions of the Antidumping Agreement and Article 

VI of the GATT 1994. Consultations were held on December 20, 2004. Japan requested the 

establishment of a panel on February 4, 2005, and a panel was established on February 28, 2005. On 

April 15, 2005, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. David Unterhalter, Chair; and 

Mr. Simon Farbenbloom and Mr. Jose Antonio Buencamino, Members. 

The panel report was circulated on September 20, 2006. The panel found that there was one measure, 

“zeroing,” that was applicable in all types of comparisons and all proceedings. The panel agreed with 

prior reports that zeroing in average-to-average comparisons in investigations is inconsistent with the 

Antidumping Agreement. However, the panel also found that zeroing in transaction-to-transaction 

comparisons is not inconsistent with the Antidumping Agreement, and, expressly rejecting the Appellate 

Body’s reasoning in US–Zeroing (EC), also found that zeroing in assessment proceedings is not 

inconsistent with the Antidumping Agreement. Japan appealed the panel report. The United States filed 

a cross-appeal. 

In a report circulated January 9, 2007, the Appellate Body upheld the panel’s findings that the United 

States maintains a single “zeroing procedures” measure applicable to investigations and administrative 

reviews. The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s findings regarding zeroing in transaction-totransaction comparisons in investigations, and it also reversed the panel’s findings concerning zeroing in 

assessment proceedings. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified 

by the Appellate Body, on January 23, 2007. On 20 February 2007, the United States informed the DSB 

of its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in connection with this matter. 

On May 4, 2007, the United States and Japan informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable 

period of time for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would end 

on 24 December 2007. 

On January 10, 2008, Japan requested DSB authorization to suspend concessions on the grounds that the 

United States had failed to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings, and, on January 18, 2008, 
II. The World Trade Organization | 93 

the United States objected to the level of suspension and accordingly requested that the matter be referred 

to arbitration. On March 10, 2008, the United States and Japan informed the DSB that they had reached a 

sequencing agreement to suspend arbitration pending the completion of compliance proceedings. 

Pursuant to a joint request from the United States and Japan, the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU 

was suspended on June 9, 2008. 

On April 7, 2008, Japan requested the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel, which the DSB established 

at its meeting on April 18, 2008. On May 23, 2008, the parties agreed to constitution of the compliance 

panel as follows: Mr. José Antonio Buencamino, Chair; and Mr. Simon Farbenbloom and Mr. Raúl LeónThorne, Members. The compliance panel agreed to open its meeting with the parties, as well as a portion 

of the meeting with the third parties, to observation by the public via closed-circuit television broadcast, 

and the open meeting was held on November 4-5, 2008. 

On April 24, 2009, the panel circulated its final report. The panel found that the United States failed to 

comply with the WTO’s rulings because it liquidated, or would liquidate, after the deadline for 

compliance antidumping duties with respect to five specific administrative reviews that used zeroing. 

The panel also found that the United States acted inconsistently with the Antidumping Agreement and the 

GATT 1994 by maintaining antidumping duties after the deadline with respect to four additional 

administrative reviews that were not part of the original WTO proceeding, and that the United States 

acted in violation of GATT Article II with respect to the collection of duties in excess of bound rates that 

occurred after the expiration of the reasonable period of time. The panel also found that the United States 

had failed to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings with respect to the use of “zeroing 

procedures” and the application of zeroing in one sunset review. Lastly, the panel found that Japan was 

permitted to challenge the final results of an administrative review which were not in existence at the time 

of Japan’s panel request. 

On May 20, 2009, the United States filed a notice of appeal. The Appellate Body granted a request by the 

parties to open its hearing to the public, and the public was able to observe the hearing, which was held on 

June 29-30, 2009, via a simultaneous closed circuit television broadcast. 

On August 18, 2009, the Appellate Body issued its report. The Appellate Body upheld the compliance 

panel on all issues that were appealed. Specifically, the Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s findings that 

the United States failed to comply with respect to five administrative reviews. The Appellate Body also 

upheld the panel’s finding of inconsistency with respect to four additional reviews that were not part of 

the original proceeding. Lastly, the Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s finding that Japan could 

challenge the final results of an administrative review which were not in existence at the time of Japan’s 

panel request, as well as the panel’s finding that the United States had acted inconsistently with GATT 

Article II. 

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report, and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 

report, on August 31, 2009. 

United States–Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand (DS343):

On April 24, 2006, Thailand requested consultations with respect to the imposition by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection of an additional bonding requirement on certain importers of shrimp subject to an 

antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand. In addition, Thailand requested 

consultations with respect to Commerce’s alleged use of “zeroing” in the antidumping investigation that 

resulted in the order. Thailand has alleged that these measures breach several provisions of the 

Antidumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. Consultations were held on August 1, 2006. Thailand 

requested the establishment of a panel on September 15, 2006, and a panel was established on October 26, 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 94 

 

2006. On January 26, 2007, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Michael Cartland, 

Chair; and Mr. Graham Sampson and Ms. Enie Neri de Ross, Members. 

The panel circulated its report on February 29, 2008. The panel found the use of zeroing in the 

investigation of shrimp from Thailand to have breached the Antidumping Agreement, and that the 

additional bond requirement as applied to importers of shrimp from Thailand was a “specific action 

against dumping” inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and was inconsistent with the Ad 

Note to paragraphs 2 and 3 of GATT 1994 Article VI because it did not constitute “reasonable” security. 

It rejected or declined to make findings with respect to Thailand’s claims on other provisions of the 

GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement. 

On April 17, Thailand appealed the findings of the panel with respect to the additional bond requirement. 

The United States cross-appealed one aspect of those findings on April 29. The Appellate Body issued its 

report on July 16, 2008. The Appellate Body found that the panel properly concluded that the additional 

bond requirement as applied to importers of shrimp from Thailand did not constitute reasonable security. 

It rejected Thailand’s other claims regarding the panel’s interpretation of the Ad Note. The panel and 

Appellate Body reports were adopted by the DSB on August 1, 2008. 

On October 31, 2008, the United States and Thailand agreed that the reasonable period of time to 

implement the DSB’s rulings and recommendations would be eight months, expiring on April 1, 2009. 

With regard to the finding of the panel regarding the use of zeroing by the Department of Commerce in 

the investigation of warmwater shrimp from Thailand, the Department of Commerce completed its 

Section 129 determination, recalculating the margins of dumping without zeroing, and implemented the 

determination effective January 16, 2009. With regard to the findings of the panel regarding the enhanced 

bond directive, on January 12, 2009, CBP published a notice proposing to end the designation of shrimp 

subject to antidumping or countervailing duty orders as a special category or covered case subject to an 

enhanced bonding requirement. After considering public comments on its proposal, CBP issued a final 

notice ending the designation, effective April 1, 2009. At the DSB meeting on April 20, 2009, the United 

States informed the DSB that it had complied with its recommendations and rulings. 

United States–Final Antidumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (DS344): 

On May 26, 2006, Mexico requested consultations with respect to Commerce’s alleged use of “zeroing” 

in an antidumping investigation and three administrative reviews involving certain stainless steel products 

from Mexico. Mexico claims these alleged measures breach several provisions of the Antidumping 

Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the WTO Agreement. Consultations were held on June 15, 2006. On 

October 12, 2006, Mexico filed a request for the establishment of a panel, and a panel was established on 

October 26, 2006. On December 20, 2006, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. 

Albert Dumont, Chair; and Mr. Bruce Cullen and Ms. Leora Blumberg, Members. 

On December 20, 2007, the panel circulated its report. The panel found that the use by the United States 

of “model zeroing” in investigations, including in the particular investigation at issue in this dispute, was 

inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Antidumping Agreement. The panel also found, however, 

that the use by the United States of “simple zeroing” in administrative reviews (including in the 

administrative reviews at issue in this dispute) was not inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the 

Antidumping Agreement. 

On January 31, 2008 Mexico appealed the panel report with respect to the “as such” and “as applied” 

claims related to zeroing in administrative review. The Appellate Body issued its report on April 30, 
II. The World Trade Organization | 95 

2008. The Appellate Body reversed the panel’s findings with respect to administrative reviews, finding 

that zeroing in administrative reviews is “as such” and “as applied” to the subject administrative reviews, 

inconsistent with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement. 

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 

report, on May 20, 2008. At the DSB meeting held on June 2, 2008, the United States notified its 

intention to comply with its WTO obligations and indicated it would need a reasonable period of time to 

do so. 

On August 11, 2008, Mexico requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through 

arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On August 29, 2008, the Director-General appointed 

Mr. Florentino P. Feliciano as the arbitrator. On October 31, 2008, the arbitrator issued his award, in 

which he decided that the reasonable period of time would be 11 months and 10 days, ending on April 30, 

2009. 

On May 18, 2009, the United States and Mexico entered into a sequencing agreement regarding any 

further proceedings in this dispute. On September 2, 2009, the United States held consultations with 

Mexico with respect to U.S. compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. 

United States–Customs Bond Directive for Merchandise Subject to Antidumping/Countervailing Duties 

(DS345): 

On April 24, 2006, India requested consultations with respect to the imposition by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection of an additional bonding requirement on certain importers of shrimp subject to an 

antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from India. India has alleged that these measures 

breach several provisions of the Antidumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. Consultations were held 

on July 31, 2006. India requested the establishment of a panel on October 26, 2006, and a panel was 

established on November 21, 2006. On January 26, 2007, the Director-General composed the panel as 

follows: Mr. Michael Cartland, Chair; and Mr. Graham Sampson and Ms. Enie Neri de Ross, Members. 

The panel circulated its report on February 29, 2008. The panel found that the additional bond 

requirement as applied to importers of shrimp from India was a “specific action against dumping” 

inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement, and was inconsistent with the Ad Note to paragraphs 

2 and 3 of GATT 1994 Article VI because it did not constitute “reasonable” security. It rejected or 

declined to make findings with respect to India’s claims on other provisions of the GATT 1994, the AD 

Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. 

On April 17, India appealed the findings of the panel with respect to the additional bond requirement. 

The United States cross-appealed one aspect of those findings on April 29. The Appellate Body issued its 

report on July 16, 2008. The Appellate Body found that the panel properly concluded that the additional 

bond requirement as applied to importers of shrimp from India did not constitute reasonable security. It 

rejected India’s other claims regarding the panel’s interpretation of the Ad Note. The panel and Appellate 

Body reports were adopted by the DSB on August 1, 2008. 

On October 31, 2008, the United States and India agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement 

the DSB’s rulings and recommendations would be eight months, expiring on April 1, 2009. 

As noted above (DS343), on January 12, 2009, CBP published a notice proposing to end the designation 

of shrimp subject to antidumping or countervailing duty orders as a special category or covered case 

subject to an enhanced bonding requirement, and, after considering public comments on its proposal, 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 96 

 

issued a final notice ending the designation, effective April 1, 2009. At the DSB meeting on April 20, 

2009, the United States informed the DSB that it had complied with its recommendations and rulings. 

United States—Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology (Zeroing II) (DS350): 

On October 2, 2006, the EU requested consultations with respect to Commerce’s alleged use of “zeroing” 

in four antidumping investigations, 35 administrative reviews, and one sunset review involving certain 

products from the EU, as well as Commerce’s alleged use of a “zeroing” methodology in determining the 

dumping margin in reviews. The EU claims these alleged measures breach several provisions of the 

Antidumping Agreement, the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement. Consultations were held on 

November 14, 2006 and February 28, 2007. On May 10, 2007, the European Communities requested the 

establishment of a panel. At its meeting on June 4, 2007, the DSB established a panel. On July 6, 2007, 

the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Faizullah Khilji, Chair; and Ms. Lilia R. 

Bautista and Mr. Michael Mulgrew, Members. Following the resignation on November 8, 2007, of Ms. 

Lilia R. Bautista as a Member of the panel, the United States and the EU agreed on November 27, 2007, 

that Ms. Andrea Marie Brown would replace her. 

The panel met with the parties on January 29-30, 2008 and on April 22, 2008, and met with the parties 

and third parties on 30 January 2008. Pursuant to the parties’ request, the meetings with the parties, as 

well as a portion of the third-party session, were open for public observation. 

The panel circulated its final report on October 1, 2008. The panel agreed with the United States that the 

EU had improperly tried to challenge the continued application, or application, of antidumping duties in 

18 cases; in addition the panel agreed that the EU had improperly tried to challenge four measures that 

were not final at the time of panel establishment. The panel, however, disagreed with the United States 

that 14 measures included in the EU’s panel request, but not its consultations request, were outside the 

panel’s terms of reference. The panel also found that the EU had not proved the use of zeroing in seven 

of 37 administrative reviews, and excluded those reviews from its findings. In addition, although the 

panel said it tended to agree with the United States and prior panel reports finding zeroing permissible in 

administrative reviews, and that it found that the U.S. interpretation was “permissible,” the panel 

nevertheless concluded that the United States acted inconsistently with the Antidumping Agreement and 

the GATT 1994 by using zeroing in 29 administrative reviews, eight sunset reviews, and four original 

investigations. In doing so, the panel said it felt constrained to follow prior Appellate Body reasoning, 

even though it expressed doubts about that reasoning. 

On November 6, 2008, the EU filed a notice of appeal. The United States filed a notice of other appeal on 

November 18, 2008. The Appellate Body granted a request by the parties to open its hearing to the 

public, and the public was able to observe the hearing, which was held on December 11-12, 2008, via a 

simultaneous closed circuit television broadcast. 

The Appellate Body issued its report on February 4, 2009. The Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s 

finding that the use of zeroing in 29 administrative reviews was inconsistent with the Antidumping 

Agreement and the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body disagreed with the panel that the interpretation of 

the Antidumping Agreement advanced by the United States was a permissible one. Moreover, the 

Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s finding that the eight sunset reviews at issue were WTOinconsistent, and also upheld the panel’s ruling that 14 measures included in the EU’s panel request, but 

not its consultations request, were properly within the panel’s terms of reference. The Appellate Body 

reversed the panel’s finding that the EU improperly challenged the application or continued application of 

antidumping duties in 18 broadly-defined cases. However, the Appellate Body was only able to complete 

the analysis as to the continued application of duties in 4 of the 18 cases. The Appellate Body reversed 
II. The World Trade Organization | 97 

the panel’s finding that the EU had improperly challenged four preliminary determinations which were 

not final at the time of panel establishment. Nevertheless, the Appellate Body declined the EU’s request 

to complete the analysis on these determinations and made no findings of inconsistency concerning them. 

Finally, the Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that the EU had not proved the use of zeroing in 

seven of 37 administrative reviews. However, the Appellate Body declined to complete the analysis as to 

two of those seven reviews, and there are no findings concerning them. For five of the reviews, the 

Appellate Body found that the United States had acted inconsistently with the Antidumping Agreement 

and GATT 1994. 

On February 19, 2009, the DSB adopted the recommendations and rulings in this dispute. At the 

following DSB meeting, on March 20, 2009, the United States informed the DSB of its intention to 

implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in connection with this matter. The United 

States and the EU agreed that the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the 

recommendations and rulings of the DSB would end on December 19, 2009. 

United States–Subsidies on large civil aircraft (Second Complaint) (DS353):

On June 27, 2005, the EU filed a second request for consultations regarding large civil aircraft subsidies 

allegedly applied by the United States. The section above on United States–Subsidies on Large Civil 

Aircraft (DS317) discusses developments with regard to the dispute arising from the initial request for 

consultations. The June 2005 request covered many of the measures covered in the initial consultations, 

as well as many additional measures that were not covered. The EU requested establishment of a panel 

with regard to its second panel request on January 20, 2006. That panel was established on February 17, 

2006. On November 22, 2006, the Deputy Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. 

Crawford Falconer, Chair; and Mr. Francisco Orrego Vicuña and Mr. Virachai Plasai, Members. 

The panel granted the parties’ request to open the substantive meetings with the parties to the public via a 

screening of a videotape of the public session. The sessions of the panel meeting that involves business 

confidential information and the panel’s meeting with third parties are closed. 

United States–Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China 

(China) (WT/DS379):

On September 19, 2008, the United States received from China a request for consultations pertaining to 

definitive antidumping and countervailing duties imposed by the United States pursuant to final 

antidumping and countervailing duty determinations and orders issued by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (DOC) in investigations on circular welded carbon quality steel pipe, certain pneumatic offthe-road tires, light-walled rectangular pipe and tube, and laminated woven sacks. China claimed that 

these measures were inconsistent with U.S. commitments and obligations under the GATT 1994, the 

SCM Agreement, the Antidumping Agreement, and China’s Protocol of Accession. 

The United States and China held consultations on November 14, 2008. On December 9, 2008, China 

requested that the DSB establish a panel. The DSB did so at its meeting on January 20, 2009. On March 

4, 2009, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. David Walker, Chair; Ms. Andrea 

Marie Brown, and Mr. Thinus Jacobsz, Members. The panel held meetings with the parties on July 7-8 

and November 11-12, 2009, and met with the parties and third parties on July 7, 2009. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 98 

 

United States–Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products 

(WT/DS381): 

On October 24, 2008, Mexico requested consultations regarding U.S. dolphin-safe labeling provisions for 

tuna and tuna products. These provisions prohibit labeling tuna and tuna products as dolphin-safe if the 

tuna was caught by using purse-seine nets intentionally set on dolphins, a technique Mexico uses to catch 

tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Mexico challenges three U.S. measures: (1) the Dolphin 

Protection Consumer Information Act (19 U.S.C. § 1385); (2) certain dolphin-safe labeling regulations 

(50 C.F.R. §§ 216.91-92); and (3) the Ninth Circuit decision in Earth Island v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d. 757 

(9th Cir. 2007). On April 20, 2009, at Mexico’s request, the DSB established a WTO panel to examine 

these measures. Mexico alleges that these measures accord imports of tuna and tuna products from 

Mexico less favorable treatment than like products of national origin and like products originating in 

other countries, and fail to immediately and unconditionally accord imports of tuna and tuna products 

from Mexico any advantage, favor, privilege, or immunity granted to like products in other countries. 

Mexico further alleges that the U.S. measures create unnecessary obstacles to trade, and are not based on 

relevant international standards. Mexico alleges that the U.S. measures are inconsistent with Articles I 

and III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical 

Barriers to Trade. 

On December 14, 2009, the Director General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Mario Matus, Chair; 

and Mr. Franz Perrez and Mr. Sivakant Tiwari, members. 

United States–Antidumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to Imports of Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil (WT/DS382): 

On November 27, 2008, the United States received from Brazil a request for consultations pertaining to 

definitive antidumping duties imposed by the United States pursuant to the final results issued by the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (DOC) in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on imports 

of certain orange juice from Brazil. Brazil claimed that certain actions by DOC and Customs and Border 

Protection with respect to this administrative review and with respect to any ongoing or future 

antidumping administrative reviews concerning this antidumping duty order, as well as various U.S. laws, 

regulations, administrative procedures, practices, and policies, both as such and as applied, are 

inconsistent with U.S. commitments and obligations under Articles II, VI:1, and V:2 of the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.3, 11.2, and 18.3 of the Agreement 

on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the Antidumping Agreement), and Article XVI:4 of 

the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Specifically, Brazil complained 

that DOC used “zeroing” in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on imports of orange 

juice. 

On May 22, 2009, the United States received a request for consultations from Brazil pertaining to the 

antidumping duty investigation on certain orange juice from Brazil, the second antidumping duty 

administrative review on certain orange juice from Brazil, and the “continued use of the US zeroing 

procedures (‘model’ or ‘simple’ zeroing) in successive antidumping proceedings.” 

On August 20, 2009, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established the panel on 

September 25, 2009. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 99 

United States–Antidumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand (Thailand) 

(WT/DS383):

On November 26, 2008, the United States received from Thailand a request for consultations pertaining to 

the application of the so-called “practice of zeroing” in calculating overall weighted average margins of 

dumping in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) on polyethylene retail carrier 

bags from Thailand. Thailand claimed that the use of “zeroing” in the final antidumping duty 

determination, amended final determination, and order inflated margins of dumping artificially created 

margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found, and was inconsistent with U.S. 

commitments and obligations under Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and 

Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 

Trade 1994. 

The United States and Thailand held consultations on January 28, 2009. At its meeting on March 20, 

2009, the DSB established a panel. On August 20, 2009, the parties agreed to compose the Panel as 

follows: Mr. Alberto Juan Dumont, Chair; and Ms. Deborah Milstein and Mr. Norman M. Harris, 

Members. 

United States–Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements (Canada) (WT/DS384):

On December 1, 2008, Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding U.S. mandatory 

country of origin labeling (COOL) provisions. Canada requested supplemental consultations with the 

United States regarding this matter on May 7, 2009. Canada challenges the COOL provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Farm, Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

(2002 Farm Bill), and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (“USDA”) Interim Final Rule on COOL published on August 1, 2008 and on August 28, 

2008, respectively, the USDA Final Rule on COOL published on January 15, 2009, and a February 20, 

2009 letter issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. These provisions relate to an obligation to inform 

consumers at the retail level of the country of origin of covered commodities, including beef and pork. 

Canada alleges that the COOL requirements are inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and 

Trade 1994, Articles III:4, IX:2, IX:4, and X:3(a), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Articles 

2.1, 2.2, and 2.4, or in the alternative, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures, Articles 2, 5, and 7, and the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Articles 2(b), 2(c), 2(e), and 2(j). 

Canada asserts that these violations nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Canada under those 

Agreements and further appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Canada in the sense of GATT 

1994, Article XXIII:1(b). 

Consultations were held on December 16, 2008, and supplemental consultations were held on June 5, 

2009. On October 7, 2009, Canada requested the establishment of a panel, and on November 19, 2009, 

the DSB established a single panel to examine both this dispute and Mexico’s dispute regarding COOL 

(see WT/DS386). 

United States–Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements (Mexico) (WT/DS386):

On December 17, 2008, Mexico requested consultations regarding U.S. mandatory country of origin 

labeling (COOL) provisions. Mexico requested supplemental consultations with the United States 

regarding this matter on May 7, 2009. Mexico challenges the COOL provisions of the Agricultural 

Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Farm, Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm 

Bill), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (“USDA”) Interim Final Rule on COOL published on August 1, 2008 and on August 28, 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 100 

 

2008, respectively, the USDA Final Rule on COOL published on January 15, 2009, and a February 20, 

2009 letter issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. These provisions relate to an obligation to inform 

consumers at the retail level of the country of origin of covered commodities, including beef and pork. 

Mexico alleges that the U.S. measures are inconsistent with the GATT 1994, Articles III:4, IX:2, IX:4, 

and X:3(a), the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 12.1, and 12.3, or, in the 

alternative, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Articles 2, 5, and 

7, and the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Articles 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e). Additionally, Mexico asserts 

that these violations nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Mexico under those Agreements, and 

further appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Mexico within the meaning of the GATT 1994, 

Article XXIII:1(b). 

Consultations were held on February 27, 2009, and supplemental consultations were held on June 5, 

2009. On October 9, 2009, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel in this dispute, and November 

19, 2009.the DSB established a single panel to examine both this dispute and Canada’s dispute regarding 

COOL (see WT/DS384). 

United States–Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China (China) (DS392):

On April 17, 2009, China requested consultations with the United States on a provision of the Omnibus 

Appropriations Act of 2009 that prohibits the use of appropriated funds for fiscal year (FY) 2009 to 

establish or implement a rule allowing the import of poultry products from China. China alleges that the 

U.S. measure appears to be inconsistent with Articles I and XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 

Trade 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, although China noted that it does 

not believe the measure at issue to be a sanitary and phytosanitary measure, China also stated that, if it 

were demonstrated that it is an SPS measure, China also would request consultations pursuant to Article 

11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). 

China further alleged that, to the extent any measure at issue is demonstrated to be an SPS measure, China 

considers that the measure is in breach of Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 of the SPS Agreement. Consultations 

were held on May 15, 2009. On July 20, 2009, China requested the establishment of a panel. At its 

meeting on July 31, 2000, the DSB established a panel. On September 23, 2009, the Director-General 

composed the panel as follows: Mr. Ole Lundby, Chair; and Mr. Mohammad Saeed and Mr. Felipe 

Lopeandia, Members. The panel met with the parties on December 15-16, 2009, and met with the parties 

and third parties on December 16, 2009. 

United States–Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from 

China (DS399):

On September 14, 2009, China requested consultations with respect to the imposition of additional duties 

on imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China under section 421 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, and section 16 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of 

China (Protocol of Accession). China alleges that the additional tariffs are inconsistent with the GATT 

1994, the Agreement on Safeguards, and the Protocol of Accession. China alleges that various elements 

of USITC’s determination regarding market disruption are inconsistent with the Protocol of Accession. 

In addition, China alleges that the level and duration of the additional tariffs are inconsistent with the 

Protocol of Accession. Finally, China alleges that the Section 421 definition of “significant cause” is in 

and of itself inconsistent with the Protocol of Accession. 

The United States held consultations with China on November 9, 2009. On December 9, 2009, China 

filed a request for establishment of a panel. As of December 31, 2009, the panel had not been established. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 101 

United States–Use of Zeroing in Antidumping Measures Involving Products from Korea (DS402):

On November 24, 2009, the Republic of Korea (Korea) requested consultations regarding the final and 

amended determinations and antidumping duty order with respect to stainless steel plate in coils from 

Korea, the final and amended determinations and antidumping duty order with respect to stainless steel 

sheet and strip in coils from Korea, and the final determination and antidumping duty order with respect 

to diamond sawblades and parts thereof from Korea. Korea challenges what it describes as the use by the 

Department of Commerce of “the practice of ‘zeroing’ negative dumping margins in calculating overall 

weighted average margins of dumping” in the investigations in those cases. Korea claims that the 

Department of Commerce’s “use of its practice of zeroing” in those investigations is inconsistent with the 

obligations of the United States under Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 

(“GATT 1994”), and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 5.8 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 

of the GATT 1994. 

J. Trade Policy Review Body 

Status 

The Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) is the subsidiary body of the General Council, created by the 

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, to administer the Trade Policy Review Mechanism 

(TPRM). The TPRM examines domestic trade policies of each Member on a schedule designed to review 

the policies of the full WTO Membership on a timetable determined by trade volume. The express 

purpose of the review process is to strengthen Members’ observance of WTO provisions and to contribute 

to the smoother functioning of the multilateral trading system. Moreover, the review mechanism serves 

as a valuable resource for improving the transparency of Members’ trade and investment regimes. 

Members continue to value the review process, because it informs each government’s own trade policy 

formulation and coordination. 

The Member under review works closely with the WTO Secretariat to provide pertinent information for 

the process. The Secretariat produces an independent report on the trade policies and practices of the 

Member under review. Accompanying the Secretariat’s report is the Member’s own report. In a TPRB 

session, the WTO Membership discusses these reports together and the Member under review addresses 

issues raised in the reports and answers questions about its trade policies and practices. Reports cover the 

range of WTO agreements – including those relating to goods, services, and intellectual property – and 

are available to the public on the WTO’s website at http://www.wto.org. Documents are filed on the 

website’s Document Distribution Facility under the document symbol “WT/TPR.” 

The TPRB’s Report to the Singapore Ministerial Meeting suggested that Members pay greater attention to 

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in preparing the TPRB timetable. A 1999 appraisal of the TPRM’s 

operation also drew attention to this matter. 

Increasingly, TPRs of LDCs perform a technical assistance function, helping them improve their 

understanding of the trade policy structure’s relationship with the WTO Agreements. The reviews have 

also enhanced these countries’ understanding of the WTO Agreements, thereby better enabling them to 

comply and integrate into the multilateral trading system. In some cases, the reviews have spurred better 

interaction between government agencies. The reports’ wide coverage of Members’ policies also enables 

Members to identify any shortcomings in policy and specific areas where further technical assistance may 

be appropriate. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 102 

 

The review process for an LDC now includes a two-to-three-day seminar for its officials on the WTO, in 

particular on the trade policy review exercise and the role of trade in economic policy. During 2009, the 

Secretariat conducted seminars for the review process of Benin, Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Mali, 

Malawi, Niger, Senegal, and Solomon Islands. In addition, similar exercises were conducted in the 

preparation of the reviews of other Members, including Albania, Armenia, Croatia, the Dominican 

Republic, Guyana, and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) countries.

Major Issues in 2009 

During 2009, the TPRB reviewed the trade regimes of Guatemala, Japan, Brazil, Fiji, EC, Mozambique, 

Solomon Islands, New Zealand, Morocco, Guyana, Zambia, Chile, Maldives, Niger, Senegal, Georgia, 

Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland. The 2009 TPRB review of the trade policies 

and practices of Georgia was the first for this country. The TPRB reviewed the trade regimes of the five 

countries (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland) that make up the South Africa 

Customs Union (SACU) both as independent WTO Members and as participants in this customs union. 

From its inception in 1998 to the end of 2009, the TPRM has conducted 305 reviews, covering 136 out of 

153 Members and representing some 97 percent of world trade. Of the 32 LDC Members of the WTO, 

the TPRB had reviewed 27 by the end of 2009. 

While each review highlights the specific issues and measures concerning the individual Member, certain 

common themes emerged during the course of the reviews conducted in 2009. These included: 

 transparency in policy making and implementation; 

 economic environment and trade liberalization; 

 implementation of the WTO Agreements; 

 regional trade agreements and their relationship with the multilateral trading system; 

 tariff issues, including the differences between applied and bound rates; 

 customs valuation and clearance procedures; 

 the use of contingency measures such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties; 

 technical regulations, and standards and their equivalence with international norms; 

 sanitary and phytosanitary measures; 

 intellectual property rights legislation and enforcement; 

 government procurement policies and practices; 

 state involvement in the economy and privatization programs; 

 trade-related investment policy issues; 

 sectoral trade-policy issues, particularly liberalization in agriculture and certain services sectors; 

and 

 technical assistance in implementing the WTO Agreements and experience with Aid for Trade, 

and the Enhanced Integrated Framework. 

Prospects for 2010

The TPRM continues to meet its transparency goals. It will continue to be an important tool for 

monitoring Members’ compliance with WTO commitments and an effective forum in which to encourage 

Members to meet their obligations and to adopt further trade liberalizing measures. For 2010, the 

proposed program of reviews is the United States, China, Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong China, 

Albania, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Burkina Faso, Croatia, El Salvador, Gambia, Honduras, Jamaica, 

Malawi, Mali, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 103 

K. Other General Council Bodies/Activities 

1. Committee on Trade and Environment 

Status 

The Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) was created by the WTO General Council on January 

31, 1995, pursuant to the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Trade and Environment. Since then, the 

CTE has discussed many important issues, with a focus on those identified in the Doha Declaration. 

These issues include: market access associated with environmental measures (Doha sub-paragraph 32(i)); 

the TRIPS Agreement and the environment (Doha sub-paragraph 32(ii)); labeling for environmental 

purposes (Doha sub-paragraph 32(iii)); capacity-building and environmental reviews (Doha paragraph 

33); and discussion of the environmental aspects of the Doha negotiations (Doha paragraph 51). These 

issues identified in the Doha Declaration are separate from those that are subject to specific negotiating 

mandates that are being taken up by the Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session (CTESS). 

(For additional information, see Chapter II.C.6.)

Major Issues in 2009

In 2009, the CTE met twice, on July 10 and November 20. Members were not very active, reflecting a 

greater degree of engagement in other WTO negotiating bodies. Much of the CTE discussion focused on 

trade and climate change, which reflected national governments’ actions and concerns in the global 

negotiations to address climate change. 

Trade and Climate Change:

Many Members expressed their interest in the CTE’s considering a variety of trade issues stemming from 

efforts to address climate change, such as carbon footprint labeling schemes for products and related 

methodologies for counting carbon. In order to structure such future discussions, several Members 

suggested that the Secretariat make a presentation on its joint publication with United Nations 

Environment Program (UNEP), published in June 2009, “Trade and Climate Change,” which examines 

“how trade and climate change policies interact and can be mutually supportive.” The WTO Secretariat is 

expected to make such a presentation at the next meeting of the CTE in early 2010. The joint UNEPWTO report is available on the WTO website at 

www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/trade_climate_change_e.htm. 

Market Access under Doha Sub-Paragraph 32(i): 

Following a Secretariat-sponsored workshop on private voluntary standards in July, several developing 

countries expressed concerns that private environmental standards hampered market access for their 

exports. The workshop presentations are available on the WTO website, 

www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/events_e.htm. 

The TRIPS Agreement and the Environment under Doha Sub-Paragraph 32(ii): 

There were no discussions during 2009 under this agenda item. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 104 

 

Labeling for Environmental Purposes under Doha Sub-Paragraph 32(iii): 

Discussions under this agenda item continued to reflect a lower level of interest, with the exception of the 

European Communities, which continue to press for future focused work on eco-labeling in the CTE. 

However, we anticipate that broader interest could increase in the future, due to the aforementioned 

interest in carbon footprint labeling schemes. 

Capacity Building and Environmental Reviews under Doha Paragraph 33: 

Developing country Members continued to stress the importance of benefiting from technical assistance 

related to WTO negotiations on trade and environment, particularly given the complexity of some of these 

issues. Several Members briefed the Committee on cooperative trade and environment programs 

undertaken in relation to Free Trade Agreements. The Secretariat informed the CTE of its trade and 

environment technical assistance activities undertaken in 2009 and planned for 2010. UNEP briefed the 

CTE on its online training program focused on organic product trade opportunities, and UNCTAD briefed 

Members on its activities related to organic agriculture trade and its trade and environment report. 

The CTE also received briefings by several multilateral environment agreement (MEA) secretariats 

regarding recent and upcoming meetings, including: the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); and 

the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 

Prospects for 2010 

It is expected that the CTE’s discussions will become more structured and focused on climate change in 

2010, including further study of carbon-related labeling schemes and related methodologies for counting 

carbon. It is also expected that developing country Members’ interest in private, environmental standards 

will continue in 2010, and discussion in the CTE is likely to focus on the impact of private environmental 

standards on market access for developing country exports. 

2. Committee on Trade and Development 

Status 

The Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) was established in 1965 to strengthen the GATT 

1947’s role in the economic development of less-developed GATT Contracting Parties. In the WTO, the 

CTD is a subsidiary body of the General Council. Since the Doha Development Round was launched, 

Members have established two additional sub-groups of the CTD, a Subcommittee on Least Developed 

Countries (LDCs) and a Dedicated Session on Small Economies. 

The CTD addresses trade issues of interest to Members with particular emphasis on issues related to the 

operation of the “Enabling Clause” (the 1979 Decision on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, 

Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries). In this context, the CTD focuses on the 

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programs, the Global System of Trade Preferences among 

developing country Members, and regional integration efforts among developing country Members. In 

addition, the CTD focuses on issues related to the fuller integration of all developing country Members 

into the international trading system, technical cooperation and training, trade in commodities, market 

access in products of interest to developing countries, and the special concerns of LDCs, small, and 

landlocked economies. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 105 

The CTD has been the primary forum for discussion of broad issues related to the nexus between trade 

and development, rather than the implementation or operation of a specific agreement. Since the 

initiation of the DDA, the CTD has intensified its work on issues related to trade and development. The 

CTD has focused on issues such as expanding trade in products of interest to developing country 

Members, problems associated with reliance on a narrow export base and on trade in commodities, the 

WTO’s technical assistance and capacity building activities, and an overall assessment of the 

development aspects of the DDA and sustainable development goals. As directed in the 2005 Hong Kong 

Ministerial Declaration, the CTD also conducts annual reviews of steps taken by WTO Members to 

implement the decision on providing duty-free, quota-free (DFQF) market access to the LDC Members. 

Work in the Sub-Committee on LDCs and the Dedicated Session on Small Economies has included 

review of market access challenges related to exports of LDC Members and discussed options for 

improving export competitiveness in textiles and clothing, and the use of regional bodies to address the 

trade-related needs of small, vulnerable economies, including island and landlocked states. 

Major Issues in 2009

The CTD in Regular Session held five formal sessions in March, May, July, October, and 

December 2009. Activities of the CTD and its subsidiary bodies in 2009 included: 

 Technical Cooperation and Training: The CTD took note of the Annual Report on Technical 

Assistance and Training, January 1 to December 31, 2008 (WT/COMTD/W/168), and of the 

Technical Cooperation Audit Report for 2008 (WT/COMTD/W/169 and Rev.1). The Secretariat 

provided information on preparations for the implementation of the Technical Assistance and 

Training Plan for 2010. 

 

 Notifications Regarding Market Access for Developing and Least-Developed Countries: The CTD 

continued its consideration of Norway’s GSP notification (WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4) on the basis of 

questions submitted by Brazil (WT/COMTD/65 and Add.2). The CTD also reviewed notifications 

concerning the GSP schemes of the European Union (WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4), Switzerland 

(WT/COMTD/N/7/Add.3), and the United States (WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.6). 

 Transparency of Preferential Trading Arrangements (PTAs): In December 2006, the General Council 

invited the CTD to review the transparency of GSP programs and other preferential agreements under 

its mandate. The proponents of a Transparency Mechanism for PTAs (Brazil, China, India, and the 

United States) circulated a revised draft proposal (JOB (08)/103/Rev.1) in November 2009. The 

Committee considered the revised proposal after proponents introduced it. Members indicated their 

interest in continuing their consideration of the revised proposal. It was agreed at the December CTD 

that the Chairman would request that the General Council grant the Committee an extension of its 

mandate until July 2010 to consider the matter and report back for appropriate action. 

 Duty-Free, Quota-Free Market Access for LDCs Members: The Decision taken at the Hong Kong 

Ministerial Conference on duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access for least-developed 

countries (LDCs) remains a standing item on the CTD’s agenda. At the 74th Session, India provided 

an update on the implementation of its Duty Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme for LDCs. 

During the December meeting, the CTD conducted its fourth annual review of the implementation of 

the Hong Kong Decision, as mandated in Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 

 Review of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) between Developing Country Members: Formal 

sessions of the CTD Dedicated Session on RTAs were held in July and September 2009. The CTD 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 106 

 

considered the Free Trade Agreement between Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Goods) and the Closer 

Economic Partnership Agreement between Pakistan and Malaysia (Goods). Members also considered 

issues relating to the requested change in the notification status of the Gulf Cooperation Council 

(GCC) Customs Union to the Enabling Clause (WT/REG222/N/1 and Corr.1, WT/COMTD/N/25, 

WT/COMTD/66 and Add.1 to Add.3). Following a decision taken by the Committee on Regional 

Trade Agreements (CRTA), Members agreed that RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause involving 

non-WTO Members would be considered using the same procedures as those being used to consider 

RTAs involving WTO Members only. 

 Dedicated Session on Small Economies: In 2009, following on work of the CTD in the Dedicated 

Session on Small Economies to identify the unique characteristics and problems of Small Economies 

in the trading system, Members continued to monitor the progress of the small economies’ proposals 

in the negotiating and other bodies. The Dedicated Session on Small Economies held meetings in 

July and October 2009, where the Secretariat presented an updated compilation paper of the small 

economies’ negotiating proposals to assist the Dedicated Session with its monitoring role, and 

Members adopted the draft Dedicated Session’s report to the General Council (WT/COMTD/SE/6). 

 Aid for Trade: The CTD held five sessions on Aid for Trade in 2009, in February, April, June, 

October, and November. Work focused on the Director-General’s proposed Aid-for-Trade Roadmap 

(WT/COMTD/AFT/W/11), work related to the joint OECD/WTO Aid-for-Trade at a Glance 2009 

Report, and preparations for the 2nd Global Review of Aid for Trade. Presentations were made by the 

regional development banks, the OECD, and UNIDO related to Aid for Trade. The 2nd Global 

Review of Aid for Trade took place on July 6-7, 2009. It evaluated progress made since the 

1st Global Review held in November 2007 and examined how Aid for Trade was being 

operationalized on the ground. In 2009, Members also worked on a draft Aid-for-Trade Work 

Program covering the period 2009 to 2011. The work program is focused around four main headings: 

resource mobilization, mainstreaming, implementation (with a particular focus on the regional 

dimension), and engaging the private sector. 

 LDC Subcommittee: The Subcommittee held two meetings in 2009 where it mainly focused on the 

implementation of the WTO Work Program for LDCs adopted by Members in 2002. The subjects 

discussed included: market access for LDCs; trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building 

initiatives for LDCs; and accession of LDCs to the WTO.

 Other CTD Issues: In order to assist the Committee with its requirement to keep under continuous 

review the participation of developing country Members in the multilateral trading system, the 

Secretariat prepared a report (WT/COMTD/W/172 and Corr.1) highlighting salient features 

concerning the participation of developing economies in the global trading system, including recent 

developments during the financial and economic crisis. Additionally, the Joint Advisory Group 

(JAG) on the International Trade Centre, UNCTAD and the WTO provided a report to the CTD on its 

42nd Session (ITC/AG/ (XLI)/225). 

Prospects for 2010 

The CTD is expected to continue to monitor developments as they relate to issues of concern to 

developing country Members, including those related to technical assistance. Interest in market access is 

expected to continue. In this vein, the CTD will undertake its responsibility to review steps taken by 

Members to provide DFQF market access to the LDC Members in line with the Hong Kong Declaration, 

review the participation of developing country Members in the multilateral trading system, and review 

market access for LDCs in the LDC Subcommittee. The CTD will also continue its work on Aid for 
II. The World Trade Organization | 107 

Trade in line with the work program for 2009-2011. In addition, the CTD’s examination of RTAs 

between developing country Members will continue as new RTAs are notified to the WTO, including a 

notification concerning the Chile-India Agreement (WT/COMTD/N/30). A new transparency mechanism 

to facilitate the review of PTAs is also expected to be implemented, and the CTD could review the first 

arrangements in late 2010. 

3. Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions 

Status 

The Uruguay Round Understanding on Balance-of-Payments (BOP) substantially strengthened GATT 

disciplines on BOP measures. Under the WTO Agreement, any Member imposing restrictions for BOP 

purposes must consult regularly with the BOP Committee to determine whether the use of such 

restrictions are necessary or desirable to address a Member’s BOP difficulties. The BOP Committee 

works closely with the International Monetary Fund in conducting consultations. Full consultations 

involve examining a Member’s trade restrictions and balance-of-payments situation, while simplified 

consultations provide for more general reviews. Full consultations are held when restrictive measures are 

introduced or modified, or at the request of a Member in view of improvements in its balance-ofpayments. 

Major Issues in 2009

Following Ecuador’s notification on February 18, 2009 (WTO document WT/BOP/N/65) that it had 

applied measures for balance-of-payments purposes, the Committee held consultations with Ecuador in 

April, June, September, and October 2009. Ecuador agreed to replace most of the quantitative restrictions 

with price-based measures no later than September 1, 2009, and to progressively modify the level and 

scope of the measures as its balance of payments situation improved. Ecuador also committed to remove 

all trade measures applied for balance of payments purposes no later than January 22, 2010, and to 

immediately notify the steps taken to the Committee. The Committee agreed, in the light of the 

commitments taken by Ecuador, that the measures applied could remain in place temporarily under the 

provisions of Art. XVIII:B of the GATT 1994. 

Following Ukraine’s notification on March 4, 2009 of the introduction of an import surcharge of 13 

percent on imports of certain products for balance-of-payments purposes for a period of up to six calendar 

months (document WT/BOP/N/66), the Committee held consultations with Ukraine in June. The 

Committee concluded that the measures taken by Ukraine were not justified by its balance-of-payments 

situation and had not been applied in a manner consistent with the requirements set forth in Article XII of 

GATT 1994 and the Understanding. The Committee noted Ukraine's commitments to eliminate the 

measures no later than September 7, 2009, as set out by the legislation, to firmly endeavor to eliminate 

them by mid July, and to immediately notify to the Committee the action taken. On September 8, 2009, 

Ukraine notified the Committee that the measures applied for balance-of-payments purposes had been 

discontinued as of September 7, 2009. 

The Committee met in October to hold its eighth annual review under China's Transitional Review 

Mechanism according to paragraph 18 of China’s Protocol of Accession. In light of China’s balance-ofpayments position, there was little discussion. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 108 

 

Prospects for 2010 

Should a Member resort to new BOP measures, WTO rules require a thorough program of consultation 

with the Committee. We expect the BOP Committee to continue to ensure that BOP provisions are used 

as intended to address legitimate problems through the imposition of temporary, price-based measures. 

4. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration 

Status 

The Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration (the Budget Committee) is responsible for 

establishing and presenting the budget for the WTO Secretariat to the General Council for Members’ 

approval. The Budget Committee meets throughout the year to address the financial requirements of the 

organization. The budget process in the WTO operates on a biennial basis. As is the practice in the 

WTO, decisions on budgetary issues are taken by consensus. The United States is an active participant in 

the Budget Committee. 

In the WTO, the assessed contribution of each Member is based on the share of that Member’s trade in 

goods, services, and intellectual property. The United States, as the Member with the largest share of 

world trade, makes the largest contribution to the WTO budget. For the 2010 budget, the U.S. assessed 

contribution is 12.962 percent of the total budget assessment, or Swiss Francs (CHF) 24,550,028 (about 

$23.7 million). (Details required by Section 124 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act on the WTO’s 

consolidated budget for 2009 and 2010 are provided in Annex II.) 

Major Issues in 2009

Activities of the Committee in 2009 included: 

 WTO Budget: The Committee recommended a budget for the WTO of CHF 194 million (about 

$187.8 million) for 2010 and CHF 198 million (about $191.7 million) for 2011, which represent 

annual increases of 2.5 percent and 2.17 percent respectively. 

 WTO Facilities: The work on the first renovated area in the South Wing of the Centre William 

Rappard building was completed on October 7, 2009. The work in the next area was started and is 

expected to be completed in June 2010. The construction permit for the intra-muros project was 

adapted following meetings with local authorities and is expected to be granted before the end of 

March 2010. The project was presented to the two federal chambers in Bern at the end of December 

in order to obtain a loan of CHF 20 million (about $19.4 million) at the beginning of 2010, which is 

an interest-free loan to be repaid by the WTO over 50 years. A CHF 27 million grant (approximately 

$26.1 million) was approved by the local Swiss authorities for the construction of a 400-space 

parking garage, fulfilling the last requirement for the WTO to become owner of the Centre William 

Rappard. 

 Change in Normal Retirement Age and Pension Contribution: A change in the normal retirement age 

from 62 to 65 was adopted and becomes effective as of January 1, 2010. An increase in the 

contribution rate to the WTO Pension Plan from 22.5 percent to 23.7 percent was also adopted and 

becomes effective as of January 1, 2010. The purpose of these changes was to address a projected 

actuarial deficit in the WTO’s Pension Fund. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 109 

 Diversification of the WTO Secretariat: In response to a proposal by several Members on the need to 

improve the diversification of the WTO Secretariat, the Secretariat prepared and presented the 

“Report on Diversity of the WTO Secretariat” (WT/BFA/W/191 and CPR(09)29), which explains that 

the WTO is required by its own regulations to ensure diversity in its hiring practices and that the 

Director-General is committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all, regardless of nationality or 

gender. The Secretariat intends to present a full report on staff diversification to the Committee at its 

first meeting in 2010. 

Prospects for 2010 

The Budget Committee will continue to monitor the financial and budgetary situation of the WTO on an 

ongoing basis. The Budget Committee will actively work with the Director-General on the progress and 

any and all financial requirements incurred for the planned new facility renovation and relocation for the 

WTO. It will also be regularly consulted and kept informed of all aspects concerning the finalization and 

implementation of security enhancements. 

5. Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 

Status 

The Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), a subsidiary body of the General Council, was 

established in early 1996 as a central body to oversee all regional agreements to which Members are 

party. 

The CRTA is charged with conducting reviews of individual agreements, seeking ways to facilitate and 

improve the review process, implementing the biennial reporting requirements established in the Uruguay 

Round Agreements, and considering the systemic implications of such agreements and regional initiatives 

for the multilateral trading system. Prior to 1996, these reviews were typically conducted by a “working 

party” formed to review a specific agreement. 

GATT Article XXIV is the principal provision governing Free Trade Areas (FTAs), Customs Unions 

(CUs), and interim agreements leading to an FTA or CU concerning goods. Additionally, the 1979 

Decision on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of 

Developing Countries, commonly known as the “Enabling Clause,” provides a basis for certain 

agreements between or among developing country Members, also concerning trade in goods. The 

Uruguay Round added three more provisions: the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV, 

which clarifies and enhances the requirements of Article XXIV of GATT 1994; and Articles V and Vbis 

of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which govern services and labor markets 

economic integration agreements. 

FTAs and CUs are authorized departures from the principle of MFN treatment, if certain requirements are 

met. With respect to goods, tariffs and other restrictions on trade must be eliminated on substantially all 

trade between the parties. In addition, duties and commercial measures applied to third countries upon 

the formation of an FTA or CU must not be higher or more restrictive than was the case before the 

agreement. If, in forming a CU, a Member exceeds its WTO bound rates, it must so notify the WTO in 

order to negotiate, with other Members, compensation in the form of market access concessions. Finally, 

while interim agreements leading to FTAs or CUs are permissible, transition periods to full FTAs or CUs 

should exceed ten years only in exceptional cases. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 110 

 

With respect to trade in services, the CU or FTA must have “substantial sectoral coverage” and prohibit 

or eliminate substantially all discrimination; in addition, the FTA or CU may not exclude a priori any 

mode of supply from the agreement. As with agreements on goods, barriers or restrictions to trade in 

services applicable to third parties upon formation of the FTA or CU may not be higher than was the case 

previously. Finally, a compensation requirement analogous to that in goods agreements exists for 

services agreements. 

Major Issues in 2009

As of October 15, 2009, 457 RTAs have been notified to the GATT or WTO.16 Of the notified 

agreements, 266 are currently in force. These figures correspond to 364 integrated RTAs (goods and 

services together), of which 186 are in force. Of the RTAs in force, 162 are notified as GATT Article 

XXIV agreements; 27 are notified as Enabling Clause agreements;17 and 77 are notified as GATS Article 

V agreements. 

At the end of 2006, the General Council established, on a provisional basis, a new transparency 

mechanism for all RTAs which was implemented in 2007. The main features of the mechanism, agreed 

upon in the Negotiating Group on Rules, include the early announcement of any RTA; guidelines 

regarding the notification of RTAs; the preparation by the WTO Secretariat, on its own responsibility and 

in full consultation with the parties, of a factual presentation of RTAs to assist Members in their 

consideration of a notified RTA; timeframes associated with the consideration of RTAs; provisions 

regarding subsequent notification and reporting of notified RTAs; technical support for developing 

countries; and the distribution of work between the CRTA – entrusted to implement the mechanism vis-àvis RTAs falling under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS – and the Committee on 

Trade and Development, entrusted to do the same for RTAs falling under the Enabling Clause. 

In the years prior to the adoption of the transparency mechanism, the CRTA had completed the 

examination of a total of 67 agreements, of which 46 were in the area of trade in goods and 21 in trade in 

services. Since the adoption of the transparency mechanism three years ago, 67 agreements have been 

examined (23 in 2009). Of these agreements, 64 have been reviewed in the CRTA and three in the CTD. 

A total of 95 RTAs remain to be reviewed, comprising 92 RTAs for which the factual presentation is 

under preparation and three RTAs for which the factual presentation is on hold because commitments in 

the agreements are still being negotiated by the parties. 

At the time of the adoption of the Decision on the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade 

Agreements in December 2006, the Chair of the General Council had noted that Members intended to 

conduct an initial review of the Mechanism within one year. However, in December 2009 the United 

States and other Members acknowledged that that there was not yet enough experience, particularly with 

regard to RTAs falling under the Enabling Clause, for the review to take place. 

Under the transparency mechanism, the WTO Secretariat was tasked to establish and maintain an updated 

electronic database on individual RTAs. The database was launched in January 2009 and includes 

extensive information, all of which is available to the public. The RTAs database may be accessed at: 

http://rtais.wto.org. 

 

16 This figure counts the goods and services portions of some RTAs as separate agreements. 

17 Consistent with past practice, RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause continue to be reviewed in the Committee 

on Trade and Development (CTD). 
II. The World Trade Organization | 111 

Prospects for 2010 

Four sessions of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements are foreseen in 2010. The United StatesBahrain Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement, and Dominican RepublicCentral America-United States Free Trade Agreement are among those RTAs that are likely to be 

reviewed under the Transparency Mechanism in 2010. 

6. Accessions to the World Trade Organization 

Status 

Work on accessions in 2009 slowed perceptibly from the previous year. Both the number of active 

accessions and the frequency of Working Party (WP) meetings dropped sharply from 2008. There were 

no new applications for accession nor did any accession applicant become a WTO Member in 2009. The 

number of countries in accession negotiations remained at twenty-nine.18 Montenegro had substantially 

completed its multilateral negotiations in 2008. At the end of 2009, however, bilateral market access 

negotiations were still going on with one Member. Samoa’s excellent progress in the first half of 2009 

slowed markedly after a devastating tsunami hit the Pacific island country in September. Through early 

June, bilateral and multilateral work with Russia and Kazakhstan gained momentum; however, on June 

9th, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus suspended their WTO accession processes and announced they were 

forming a customs union with a common external tariff (CXT) that would enter into force on January 1, 

2010. They indicated they intended to reformulate their accession and join as a customs union. Based on 

reactions from Members to this proposal, the three governments are reconsidering how they will approach 

the WTO accession process. 

During 2009, WP meetings and/or bilateral market access negotiations were held in Geneva with 

Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Laos, Lebanon, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Yemen. Additionally, 

Chair’s consultations, similar to informal WP meetings, were convened for Samoa and Russia. Market 

access negotiations and bilateral consultations on other issues also took place at the time of these 

meetings. Two informal consultations also were held to receive information from Russia, Kazakhstan, 

and Belarus on their plans for a customs union and harmonized tariffs and the impact on their WTO 

accessions. Afghanistan, The Bahamas, and Iran circulated their initial documentation, the Memorandum 

on the Foreign Trade Regime (MFTR), the action necessary to activate their Working Parties and begin 

negotiations. For Afghanistan and The Bahamas, Members developed initial questions and comments on 

the respective document for written response by these applicants. Responses had not been received as of 

the beginning of 2010. Members will similarly submit questions and comments on Iran’s MFTR at the 

beginning of 2010. Vanuatu and the Seychelles resumed negotiations for accession after a break of 8 

years and 11 years respectively. 

Five of the twenty-nine current applicants for WTO accession (Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, 

Libya, and Sao Tome and Principe) have not yet submitted initial descriptions of their trade regimes. The 

Working Parties on the accessions of four other applicants – Andorra, Belarus, Sudan, and Uzbekistan – 

remained dormant, and the accessions of Algeria and Bhutan also were inactive during 2009. The 

Working Parties on the accessions of Ethiopia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, and Montenegro, did not meet in 2009, 

but bilateral work continued on each of these accessions and each government engaged in domestic 

 

18 Accession Working Parties have been established for Afghanistan*, Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 

Belarus, Bhutan*, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros*, Equatorial Guinea*, Ethiopia*, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, 

Laos*, Lebanon, Liberia*, Libya, Montenegro, Russia, Samoa*, Sao Tome and Principe*, Serbia, Seychelles, 

Sudan*, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu*, and Yemen* (The 12 countries marked with an asterisk are LDCs). 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 112 

 

efforts to enact legislation to implement WTO provisions. The chart included in Annex II reports the 

current status of each accession negotiation. 

Background: 

Countries and separate customs territories seeking to join the WTO must negotiate the terms of their 

accession with current Members, as provided for in Article XII of the WTO Agreement. The accession 

process, with its emphasis on implementation of WTO provisions and the establishment of stable and 

predictable market access for goods and services, provides a proven framework for adoption of policies 

and practices that encourage trade and investment and promote growth and development. 

In a typical accession negotiation, an application is submitted to the WTO General Council, which 

establishes a “Working Party” composed of all interested WTO Members to review the applicant’s trade 

regime and to conduct the negotiations. WP meetings normally are scheduled when there is sufficient 

new documentation or progress in WTO implementation to justify further discussion. The number of WP 

meetings, as well as the length of the negotiations, largely depends on the speed with which the applicant 

is prepared to address the identified issues and to complete the negotiations. Accession applicants also 

negotiate trade liberalizing specific commitments on market access for industrial and agricultural goods, 

as well as for services, based on requests from WP Members. Applicants also are expected to make 

necessary legislative changes to implement WTO institutional and regulatory requirements and to 

eliminate existing WTO-inconsistent measures. Almost all accession applicants take all of these actions 

on WTO rules prior to accession.19 

At the conclusion of its work, the Working Party adopts the agreed results of the negotiations (the 

recommended “terms of accession” developed with WP Members in bilateral and multilateral 

negotiations) and transmits them with its recommendation for approval to the General Council or 

Ministerial Conference.20 These terms, the accession “protocol package,” consist of the Report of the 

Working Party and Protocol of Accession, consolidated schedules of specific commitments on market 

access for imported goods and services by foreign suppliers, and agriculture schedules that include 

commitments on export subsidies and domestic supports. After General Council or Ministerial 

Conference approval, accession applicants submit the package to their domestic authorities for acceptance 

(ratification). Thirty days after the WTO receives the applicant’s instrument accepting the terms of 

accession, the applicant becomes a WTO Member. 

The accession process strengthens the international trading system by ensuring that new Members 

understand and implement WTO rules from the outset. The process also offers current Members the 

opportunity to secure market access opportunities from acceding countries, to work with acceding 

Members towards full implementation of WTO obligations, and to address outstanding trade issues 

covered by the WTO in a multilateral context. 

LDC Accessions: 

WTO Members are committed to accelerating the accession process of least-developed countries (LDCs) 

and in making WTO accession more accessible to these applicants. The accession negotiations for all 

LDC accession applicants are guided by the simplified and streamlined procedures developed for these 

 

19 As outlined below, negotiations with applicants designated as “least-developed” by the United Nations are subject 

to special procedures and guidelines, and do not, as a rule, fully implement WTO provisions prior to accession. 

20 Working Party adoption is by “consensus,” or without an objection by any WP Member. While there are 

provisions in the WTO Agreement for the Ministerial Conference or General Council to approve accessions by a 

two-thirds affirmative vote, in practice, accessions are approved by consensus. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 113 

countries at the end of 2002 in the WTO General Council Decision on Accessions of Least-Developed 

Countries (WT/L/508). Under these guidelines, the accession process becomes a tool for economic 

development, incorporating the applicant’s own development program and laying out an action plan for 

progressive implementation of WTO rules. The market access schedules and protocols of accession 

developed under these guidelines reflect the need to address realistically these countries’ real trade 

capacity deficiencies and the difficulties they face in achieving normal WTO accession objectives. Using 

the guidelines, WTO Members pledged to exercise restraint in seeking market access concessions and to 

agree to transitional arrangements for implementation of WTO Agreements. 

U.S. Leadership and Technical Assistance: 

As a matter of longstanding policy, the United States takes a leadership role in all aspects of the 

accessions, including bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral negotiations. The objective is to ensure that 

new Members fully implement WTO provisions and to encourage trade liberalization in developing and 

transforming economies, as well as to use the opportunities provided in these negotiations to expand 

market access for U.S. exports. The United States also provides a broad range of technical assistance to 

countries seeking accession to the WTO to help them meet the requirements and challenges presented, 

both by the negotiations and the process of implementing WTO provisions in their trade regimes. This 

assistance is provided through USAID, USDA, and the Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP) 

of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

This assistance can include short-term technical expertise focused on specific issues (e.g., customs 

procedures, intellectual property rights protection, or technical barriers to trade) and/or a WTO expert in 

residence in the acceding country or customs territory. A number of the WTO Members that have 

acceded since 1995 received technical assistance in their accession process from the United States, e.g., 

Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, 

Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Nepal, Ukraine, and Vietnam. Most of these countries had U.S.-

provided resident experts for some portion of the process. 

Current accession applicants to which the United States provided a resident expert or other long-term 

assistance for the accession process during 2009 include: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Montenegro, Serbia, and Yemen. In addition, a U.S.-funded 

WTO expert resident in Bishkek provides resident WTO accession assistance to Kazakhstan and 

Tajikistan, as well as post-accession assistance to the Kyrgyz Republic. In February 2009, members of 

the National Assembly of Laos PDR participated in a USAID-sponsored workshop on the WTO 

accession process and Member obligations under the WTO Agreement. Among current accession 

applicants, Algeria, Belarus, Russia, and Uzbekistan also received U.S. technical assistance earlier in their 

accession processes. 

Major Issues in 2009

All accession-related negotiations will require attention and resources from WTO delegations. Work on 

accessions tends to focus on those applicant countries that demonstrate a strong interest in completing the 

process (e.g., by submitting usable documentation on a timely basis), through progress on market access 

and legal changes to implement WTO provisions, or by making progress on development of the text of 

the report of the Working Party. Work on other applicants’ accession processes moves forward as well, 

but more slowly. Activity was more evenly distributed in 2009, however. Negotiations with 

Montenegro, Samoa, Russia, and Kazakhstan, which had been advancing towards conclusion, all slowed 

in the second half of the year, providing an opportunity for other applicants (e.g., Serbia) to shift 

Members’ focus towards their negotiations. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 114 

 

Montenegro: 

Montenegro had successfully completed its market access negotiations with all Members except Ukraine 

at the end of 2008. Since its draft WP report is also substantially finalized, General Council approval of 

the terms of accession was expected early in 2009. Montenegro and Ukraine met several times during 

2009 and made substantial progress towards agreement on both goods and services market access. 

However, these negotiations had not been completed at the end of 2009. 

Serbia:

Serbia made substantial progress in both market access negotiations and multilateral review of its trade 

regime in 2009. In addition, legislative implementation of WTO provisions, which had been suspended 

by an extended political crisis, resumed in May. By the end of the year, Serbia was still negotiating 

bilaterally with only a few Members (including the United States, Ukraine, Korea, Ecuador, Brazil, and 

Norway) and in a few cases on only one or two issues. WP review of Serbia’s trade regime, as reflected 

in the draft WP report, also moved forward based on comprehensive comments submitted by the United 

States and other WTO delegations after the July WP meeting. WP Members also reviewed new 

legislation on standards and technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and the new 

Customs Code. Less promising was Serbia’s enactment in June of a new law banning trade in any 

products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO). The United States and other WTO Members 

have objected to this measure, and Serbia has agreed to modify it to bring it into line with WTO rules. 

Russia:

At the end of May 2009, Russia’s WTO accession process seemed to be entering its concluding phase. 

Russia had completed its bilateral market access negotiations on tariffs and services commitments with all 

interested WTO Members except for Georgia, and the Secretariat was working to merge these bilateral 

market access agreements into consolidated schedules. Plurilateral review of Russia’s recent data on 

agricultural supports and export subsidies had commenced. Further plurilateral review of new draft 

legislation on sanitary and phytosanitary measures was planned. Notwithstanding this progress, work 

remained to be completed on enacting remaining WTO implementing legislation (e.g., in the areas of 

customs valuation, licensing, intellectual property rights, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures) as 

well as on a number of other substantive and technical points. In early June, Russia signaled it was ready 

to move forward and indicated that there would soon be a plan for resolving most of the outstanding 

issues. 

In Moscow on June 9, however, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus announced they would form a customs 

union, beginning with the establishment of a common external tariff (CXT) by January 1, 2010. They 

suspended their accession negotiations and, for a time, indicated their intent to join the WTO as a customs 

union. Subsequent Russian statements (as well as those of Kazakhstan and Belarus) made bilaterally to 

the press and in informal meetings with WTO Members in Geneva did not fully clarify the implications of 

this decision on their WTO accession processes or present a clear plan for moving forward. Bilateral and 

multilateral work on Russia’s WTO accession halted. Most recently, the three customs union partners 

have indicated their intent to move forward in their individual accession negotiations, but to accede to the 

WTO “simultaneously” and “on the same terms” in areas where customs union regulations have 

superseded the respective national trade regimes. At the last informal consultation, in October in Geneva, 

WTO Members emphasized the need to receive information on the changes that customs union 

membership would require in their trade regimes, as well as data on changes that were contemplated in 

the tariff and other commitments they had already made in their accession negotiations. The customs 
II. The World Trade Organization | 115 

union partners were asked to provide WTO Members with this information in writing. At the end of 

2009, Members had not received this information. 

Kazakhstan: 

Prior to the June 9 announcement of formation of a customs union with Russia and Belarus, Kazakhstan 

had intensified its efforts to complete its bilateral negotiations on market access for goods and services, 

concluding several more agreements. In a series of video conferences in April, the United States and 

Kazakhstan recorded significant progress on goods tariffs and on other issues affecting market access 

(e.g., on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and on protection of intellectual property rights). 

Kazakhstan also continued to make necessary legislative changes to implement WTO provisions. 

Bilateral discussions in April helped to clarify outstanding issues for both sides on trade in services. 

Since the customs union does not cover services, USTR expects that Kazakhstan will provide a revised 

offer when negotiations restart. Other outstanding bilateral issues include completion of tariff 

negotiations, the provision of trading rights, import licensing procedures for electronic goods with 

encryption, and the operation of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises. Multilaterally, Kazakhstan 

is working on responses to questions received from the WTO Members after its last WP meeting. These 

responses will form the basis for a revised WP report text to be considered at the next meeting of its WP. 

As with Russia, Kazakhstan suspended bilateral and multilateral work on its accession after the June 9 

announcement. In addition, Kazakhstan has indicated that it intends to renegotiate tariff commitments 

already agreed in its accession process in order to be able to establish harmonized tariff commitments 

with Russia and Belarus upon accession to the WTO. The United States and other WTO Members await 

a signal from Kazakhstan that it is prepared to resume work as well as the information necessary to 

undertake that work. 

LDC Accessions 

During 2009, Members continued to give priority attention to LDC accession applicants actively 

negotiating. These applicants are Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Laos, Samoa, Vanuatu, and Yemen, the last four 

of which met either bilaterally or multilaterally with Members at least once in 2009. Negotiations with 

Samoa and Vanuatu are well advanced. Afghanistan, whose accession process had not been activated in 

2008, circulated its MFTR in April and intensified its efforts, with U.S. technical assistance, to develop 

the legislation and institutions necessary for the implementation of WTO provisions. 

Samoa:

Samoa’s WTO accession made significant progress during 2009, and many had hoped that its terms of 

accession would be approved by the Seventh Ministerial Conference in December. The Working Party 

met informally twice. Three technical assistance visits by the WTO Secretariat, additional help from 

Australia on legislative drafting, and comprehensive comments submitted by WP Members provided the 

basis for a substantial revision of the draft WP report. Samoa also completed its bilateral market access 

negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan and nearly completed work on trade in goods with 

the United States and the EU. A devastating tsunami hit Samoa’s capital city in September, however, 

dashing hopes for completing the work in 2009. At the last informal meeting of the Working Party in 

October, the WP Chairman noted that Samoa needs to complete its market access negotiations with the 

United States, the EU, and Ukraine as soon as possible. She also called on Samoa to finalize its 

commitments on WTO implementation in the areas of trading rights, customs valuation, and intellectual 

property rights; to circulate revised draft legislation in these areas; and to work with interested delegations 

to replace a handful of WTO-inconsistent import bans still in place in its trade regime. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 116 

 

Vanuatu: 

Vanuatu completed negotiations with WTO Members in 2001, but refused to have the terms of its 

accession submitted to the Ministerial Conference for approval. In 2004 and again in 2008, Vanuatu 

formally notified the WTO Secretariat that it wanted to renegotiate its accession package (specifically, 

certain services commitments) with a view to finally completing the process and becoming a WTO 

Member. Vanuatu has agreed that this will require some updating of the 2001 package in addition to its 

revised offer on trade in services and the re-submission of the revised terms of accession to the current 

WTO membership. In bilateral negotiations in November 2008, Vanuatu accepted the U.S. response to 

its proposal for renegotiation (i.e., new commitments in services sectors of interest to the United States in 

exchange for agreement to the requested changes) and has shared the new offer with other delegations 

that had negotiated market access in 2001. The WTO Secretariat has updated the WP report text based on 

material submitted by Vanuatu. At the end of 2009, Vanuatu was reviewing the revised WP report text 

and its 2001 Protocol and tariff schedule commitments in light of its current legislation and applied tariff 

rates.

Other Developments: 

During 2009, developing country and LDC Members and accession applicants intensified their 

complaints about the current accession process and on how the WTO guidelines on LDC accessions are 

being implemented. Complaints focused on the length of time it may take to complete an accession, the 

demands made by current WTO Members in the negotiations, and in general a perceived lack of 

transparency and automaticity in the entire accession process. Discussions on these issues, and proposals 

to revise the LDC accession process to address them, continued in various WTO fora throughout the year, 

including at several sessions of the General Council, at the March and September meetings of the 

Subcommittee for LDCs under the Committee on Trade and Development, and at a special informal 

meeting in May labeled a “Dialogue on LDC Accessions.” In addition, the issue was on the agenda of 

meetings of LDCs in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and in Dar-Es-Salam, Tanzania in October preparing for 

the WTO’s Seventh Ministerial Conference in December. Specific proposals ranged from revising or 

interpreting the Decision on LDC Accessions (WT/L/508) to make its provisions more specific and more 

automatic, to encouraging additional interventions on LDC applicants’ behalf by the WTO DirectorGeneral, to requiring periodic discussions on the status of LDC accessions in the General Council that 

better reflected LDC complaints. At the end of 2009, however, none of these proposals had been adopted, 

as many Members disagreed with the contention that new institutions or changes in the 2002 Decision 

were necessary. 

The United States and other developed country WTO Members have strongly supported the General 

Council Decision on LDC Accessions, strictly adhering to the guidelines in formulating more flexible 

negotiating positions on market access and WTO implementation commitments for LDCs since its 

implementation in 2002. The guidelines in the Decision also have worked well in encouraging the 

provision of technical assistance to LDCs, thus ensuring that LDCs are better prepared for the 

responsibilities of WTO Membership and in general facilitating their integration into the multilateral 

trading system. In this way, the accession process for LDCs becomes a development tool and an 

opportunity to build trade capacity and to help establish a better economic environment for investment 

and growth. 

Prospects for 2010 

The pace of work on WTO accessions should accelerate in 2010. A number of applicants have just 

activated their negotiations and those nearing completion will press forward. Montenegro is completing 
II. The World Trade Organization | 117 

its accession process and will likely become the 154th WTO Member. It appears that Samoa’s prospects 

for completing negotiations in early 2010 remain good, and Vanuatu’s revised accession package may 

also be forwarded for review and approval by the General Council later in the year. Afghanistan, Iran, 

and The Bahamas will be eligible for initial WP meetings after they respond to Members’ questions and 

comments on the MFTRs. Working Party meetings with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Yemen are 

planned for January and February 2010, at which time WTO Members also will continue bilateral goods 

and services market access negotiations. Additional WP sessions during 2010 are also likely for Ethiopia, 

Iraq, Laos, Seychelles, and Tajikistan. Resumption of WP deliberations with Azerbaijan and Lebanon are 

possible, but will depend on the timing and the quality of requested revised market access offers, as well 

as on tangible progress on legislative implementation. Work on the accessions of Russia and Kazakhstan 

should resume in 2010 after information on their new trade regimes has been circulated and reviewed by 

Members. 

Efforts to advance the accessions of LDCs will continue, as will stepped-up monitoring of the application 

of the Decision on LDC Accessions in ongoing negotiations. Special focus on completing negotiations 

with Samoa and Vanuatu is expected, as they are already well advanced. Ethiopia, Laos, and Yemen are 

other LDCs in the accession process that are actively negotiating at this time. 

7. Aid for Trade 

Status 

Aid for Trade is an effort to help developing countries in their efforts to take advantage of the 

opportunities of the multilateral trading system by connecting the trade priorities of developing countries 

with trade capacity building assistance to help those countries implement trade commitments. WTO 

Members have agreed on the need to improve the efficacy and efficiency of aid and capacity building 

efforts amongst WTO Members and other international organizations. 

The Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) for trade-related technical assistance for least-developed 

countries (both WTO Members and non-Members) is the subset of Aid for Trade designed exclusively for 

that set of countries. The EIF is a multi-organization (including the WTO, World Bank, IMF, UNCTAD, 

UNDP, UNIDO, and the International Trade Centre), multi-donor program that operates as a coordination 

mechanism for trade-related assistance to LDCs with the overall objective of integrating trade into 

national development plans. 

Major Issues in 2009

Work on Aid for Trade during 2009 focused on design and implementation of the monitoring framework 

envisioned in the task force report and preparations for the second Global Review of Aid for Trade in July 

2009. The WTO Secretariat and its regional development bank partners held a number of focused 

regional discussions of Aid for Trade in Latin America, Africa, and Asia with participation from trade, 

finance, and development officials in preparation for the global review 

The monitoring framework includes global monitoring of aid flows using the data resources of the 

OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, country-level monitoring of progress in 

mainstreaming/integrating trade in national development plans, and case studies of best practices. 

The EIF began its work in earnest, finalizing the monitoring and evaluation framework developed during 

2008 and approving projects. Approval of the first projects under the second window will begin early in 

2010. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 118 

 

Prospects for 2010 

Based on the Committee on Trade and Development’s Aid for Trade Roadmap: 2010-11, work in 2010 

will focus on several main projects: 

 The joint OECD Development Assistance Committee/Trade Committee will continue its work on 

efficient and effective ways to evaluate Aid for Trade activities; 

 Focused events in Geneva to highlight the role of trade-related activities in development sectors 

like agriculture (including food security), underlining the importance of mainstreaming trade in 

national development plans; 

 Support for regional integration; and 

 Highlighting effective aid for trade strategies. 

The third Global Review of Aid for Trade will take place in 2012. 

L. Plurilateral Agreements 

1. Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft 

Status 

The Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Aircraft Agreement) entered into force on January 1, 1980, 

and is one of two WTO plurilateral agreements (along with the Agreement on Government Procurement) 

that are in force only for those WTO Members that have accepted it.21 

The Aircraft Agreement requires Signatories to eliminate tariffs on civil aircraft, engines, flight 

simulators, and related parts and components, and to provide these benefits on a nondiscriminatory basis 

to other signatories. In addition, the Signatories have agreed provisionally to provide duty-free treatment 

for ground maintenance simulators, although this item is not covered under the current agreement. The 

Aircraft Agreement also establishes various obligations aimed at fostering free market forces. For 

example, signatory governments pledge that they will base their purchasing decisions strictly on technical 

and commercial factors. 

There are currently 31 Signatories to the Aircraft Agreement: Albania,22 Canada, the EU23 (the following 

20 EU Member States are also Signatories to the Aircraft Agreement in their own right: Austria, Belgium, 

Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 

Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), Egypt, Georgia, 

Japan, Macao China, Norway, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei and the United States. Those WTO Members 

with observer status in the Committee are: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, 

Colombia, Gabon, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Nigeria, Oman, 

 

21 Additional information on this agreement can be found on the WTO’s website at: 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/civair_e/civair_e.htm. 22 Albania became a Signatory to the Aircraft Agreement in 2009. 23 Currently comprising 27 Member States: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, 

Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, 

Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 119 

Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine.24 In addition, 

the Russian Federation is an observer. The IMF and UNCTAD are also observers. 

The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (Aircraft Committee), permanently established under the 

Aircraft Agreement, provides the Signatories an opportunity to consult on the operation of the Aircraft 

Agreement, to propose amendments to the Agreement, and to resolve any disputes. 

Major Issues in 2009 

The Aircraft Committee held one regular meeting on October 15, 2009. At this meeting, the Committee 

discussed the Technical Note prepared by the Secretariat on possible revisions to the Product Coverage 

Annex in the light of the Harmonized Commodity and Description System that entered into force in 2007. 

The Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to prepare and circulate an updated Technical Note, 

taking into account the comments and questions received thus far, which could serve as a basis for further 

discussions at the next meeting of the Committee in 2010. The Committee also reconsidered the February 

2009 letter from the Chair of the General Council inviting Signatories to hold consultations on ways to 

improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information flows on trade measures 

falling within the scope of its areas of responsibility under the Aircraft Agreement. The Committee 

agreed that, at present, there was no need to discuss how to improve the information flows on trade 

measures falling within its scope of work. The Technical Sub-Committee of the Committee on Trade in 

Civil Aircraft did not meet during the period under review and neither did the Sub-Committee of the 

Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft. 

Prospects for 2010 

The Aircraft Committee agreed to meet at least once, in the fall of 2010. The United States will continue 

to encourage Croatia and Oman to become Signatories pursuant to their respective protocols of accession 

and will continue to encourage current Committee observers and other WTO Members to become 

Signatories to the Aircraft Agreement. 

2. Committee on Government Procurement 

Status 

The WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) is a “plurilateral” agreement included in 

Annex 4 to the WTO Agreement. As such, it is not part of the WTO’s single undertaking and its 

membership is limited to WTO Members that specifically signed the GPA in Marrakesh or that have 

subsequently acceded to the Agreement. WTO Members are not required to join the GPA, but the United 

States strongly encourages all WTO Members to participate in this important agreement. 

Forty-one WTO Members are parties to the GPA: Canada; the EU and its 27 Member States (Austria, 

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 

Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Hong Kong China, 

Iceland, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands with respect to Aruba, 

Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), and the United States (collectively the GPA 

Parties). 

 

24 Ukraine became an observer to the Aircraft Committee in 2009. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 120 

 

As of the end of 2009, nine Members are in the process of acceding to the GPA: Albania, Armenia, 

China, Georgia, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Oman, and Panama. Five additional Members have 

provisions in their respective Protocols of Accession to the WTO or Working Party reports regarding 

accession to the GPA: Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, 

and the Ukraine. 

When China joined the WTO in 2001, it committed to commence negotiations to join the GPA “as soon 

as possible.” In April 2006, China agreed in the Joint Committee on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) to 

submit its initial offer of coverage by the end of 2007. Based on these commitments, China submitted its 

application for accession to the GPA and its Initial Appendix I Offer on December 28, 2007. The United 

States submitted its Initial Request for improvements in China’s Initial Offer on May 19, 2008. China 

also submitted its responses to the Checklist of Lists for Provision of Information relating to its GPA 

accession on September 15, 2008. At the U.S-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July 2009, 

China committed to submit a report to the WTO Committee on Government Procurement setting out the 

elements of its revised offer. At the JCCT meeting in October 2009, China committed to table a revised 

offer in 2010. In October, China submitted a report to the GPA Committee on its plans for submission of 

a revised offer, and the difficulties it has encountered in revising its offer. 

Armenia submitted its application for accession and initial coverage offer on September 4, 2009. In 

addition, the Kyrgyz Republic’s accession to the GPA, which had been inactive since 2003, moved 

forward with its submission of updated responses to the checklist of issues. Moldova, which had 

commenced its accession in November 2008, requested in May that further active consideration of its 

accession be deferred until its government completed a reorganization. Jordan made little progress in its 

accession as it is encountering domestic difficulties. 

Twenty-one WTO Members, including those in the process of acceding to the GPA, have observer status 

in the GPA Committee: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Cameroon, Chile, China, 

Colombia, Croatia, Georgia, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Mongolia, New Zealand, Oman, 

Panama, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. Four intergovernmental organizations (IMF, International 

Trade Centre, OECD, and UNCTAD) also have observer status. 

Article XXIV:7(b) of the GPA calls for the Parties to undertake further negotiations to improve the 

Agreement and to expand the procurement that they cover under the GPA. In December 2006, the GPA 

Committee reached provisional agreement on a substantial revision of the text, subject to a legal check 

and to a mutually satisfactory outcome in the coverage negotiations. The new GPA text will be used as 

the basis for negotiations with countries in the process of acceding to the GPA. Most of the work on the 

legal check of Articles I through XXI of the revised text was completed in 2007. Issues remain on the 

Final Provisions in Article XXII and related texts, and significant work remains on the draft decisions on 

arbitration procedures and indicative criteria. 

Major Issues in 2009 

Chinese Taipei became a GPA Party in July 2009. With its accession, Chinese Taipei fulfilled a 

commitment when it joined the WTO in 2002. 

During 2009, the GPA Committee held five meetings (in February, May, July, October, and December) 

during which Parties focused primarily on the accessions of China, Jordan, Chinese Taipei, and Armenia. 

It also continued negotiations on both coverage and text-related issues. With respect to the revision of the 

GPA text, the Committee neared completion of verification of the linguistic consistency of the English, 

French, and Spanish texts of the revision of the GPA. 
II. The World Trade Organization | 121 

With respect to the negotiations under GPA Article XXIV:7 that are aimed at expanding procurement 

covered by the Agreement, little progress was made during 2009, other than Singapore’s submission of a 

revised offer. As of the end of 2009, 11 Parties had submitted initial offers (the United States, Canada, 

the EU, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, and Aruba), but only 7 Parties had 

submitted revised offers (the United States, Japan, Korea, the EU, Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland). 

Initial offers have not yet been submitted by Hong Kong China or Liechtenstein. 

The GPA Committee held discussions at informal meetings on China, Jordan and Armenia’s accessions to 

the GPA. 

Prospects for 2010 

The GPA Committee has tentatively scheduled five meetings for 2010, with the first set for the week of 

February 8, where it is expected to continue work on the accessions of Jordan, China, Armenia, and 

Moldova. The Committee also will make a renewed effort to complete the revision of the GPA during 

2010. 

3. Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 

Technology Products 

Status 

The WTO Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (Information 

Technology Agreement (ITA)) was concluded at the WTO’s First Ministerial Conference at Singapore in 

December 1996. Original participants in the ITA eliminated tariffs as of January 1, 2000 on a wide range 

of information technology products and modified their WTO schedules of tariff concessions accordingly. 

In 2009, the ITA had 45 participants (covering 72 Members and States or separate customs territories in 

the process of acceding to the WTO) representing approximately 97 percent of world trade in information 

technology products.25 The ITA covers a wide range of information technology products including 

computers and computer peripheral equipment, electronic components including semiconductors, 

computer software, telecommunications equipment, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and 

computer-based analytical instruments. 

Major Issues in 2009

The WTO Committee on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products did not hold a 

formal meeting in 2009. However, the Committee did hold an informal consultation with ITA 

participants in March to discuss classification divergences on certain ITA products. The Committee also 

discussed the EU’s September 2008 proposal calling for immediate negotiations to review the ITA, under 

the premise that the existing Agreement is inadequate to address new developments in technology. 

Several countries, including the United States, continued to raise significant questions and concerns about 

the EU proposal. 

 

25 ITA participants are: Albania; Australia; Bahrain; Canada; China; Costa Rica; Croatia; Dominican Republic, 

Egypt; El Salvador; European Communities (on behalf of 27 Member States); Georgia; Guatemala, Hong Kong, 

China; Honduras, Iceland; India; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Jordan; Korea; Krygyz Republic; Macao, China; 

Malaysia; Mauritius; Moldova; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua, Norway; Oman; Panama; Peru; Philippines; 

Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Switzerland (on the behalf of the customs union of Switzerland and Liechtenstein); 

Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey; United Arab Emirates; Ukraine; Vietnam; and the United States. 
 II. The World Trade Organization | 122 

 

On August 18, 2008, the United States, Japan, and Chinese Taipei jointly requested the establishment of a 

dispute settlement panel to determine whether the EU is acting consistently with its WTO obligations in 

its tariff treatment of certain ITA products. WTO Dispute Settlement Panel meetings were held in this 

dispute in 2009. (For additional information, see Chapter II.I.)

Prospects for 2010 

The next meeting of the Committee has not yet been determined. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |123 

III. BILATERAL AND REGIONAL 

NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS 

A. Free Trade Agreements 

1. Australia 

The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2005. U.S. 

two-way trade with Australia was $26.7 billion in 2009, up 23 percent from 2004. U.S. goods exports 

were $18.9 billion in 2009, up 33 percent from 2004, and U.S. goods imports were $7.8 billion, up 3.5 

percent from 2004. 

Agricultural trade between the United States and Australia continued to grow in 2009. The FTA 

established working groups aimed at promoting closer cooperation between the two countries in this 

sector and creating fora for discussing agricultural and sanitary and phytosanitary issues. The working 

groups met in August 2009 to address specific bilateral animal and plant health matters with a view to 

facilitating agricultural trade. 

In October 2009, the United States and Australia completed the fourth annual FTA review. The two sides 

reviewed implementation of the agreement and exchanged views on a range of issues under the FTA, 

including trade in agriculture products, sanitary and phytosanitary issues, government procurement, and 

protection of intellectual property rights. 

The United States and Australia also discussed each government’s implementation of the obligations 

contained in the environment chapter of the FTA and exchanged views on how to improve 

communication on trade and environment issues, including possible collaboration. Both governments 

agreed to hold discussions between trade and environment experts in the coming months. 

The FTA review also provided an opportunity to further a discussion of labor issues and potential areas 

for labor cooperation. As a result, it was agreed that labor officials from the two governments would 

meet in the coming months to build on this dialogue. 

2. Bahrain 

The United States-Bahrain FTA, which entered into force on January 11, 2006, generates export 

opportunities for the United States, creating jobs for U.S. farmers and workers. The agreement also 

supports Bahrain’s economic and political reforms and enhances commercial relations with an economic 

leader in the Arabian Gulf. On the first day the agreement took effect, 100 percent of the two-way trade 

in industrial and consumer products began to flow without tariffs. Because of the FTA, U.S. farmers have 

significantly increased their agricultural exports to Bahrain. In addition, Bahrain opened its services 

market wider than any previous FTA partner, creating important new opportunities for U.S. financial 

service providers and companies that offer telecommunications, audiovisual, express delivery, 

distribution, healthcare, architecture, and engineering services. 

The central oversight body for the Agreement is the United States-Bahrain Joint Committee (JC), chaired 

jointly by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Bahrain’s Ministry of Industry and Commerce. 

The second meeting of the JC was held on October 21, 2009. During this meeting officials discussed a 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |124 

broad range of trade issues. In particular, they discussed the considerable efforts during 2009 by both 

governments to ensure effective implementation of key customs-related aspects of the FTA, including 

through targeted technical assistance to Bahrain’s customs authorities, as well as trade initiatives by the 

Gulf Cooperation Council, of which Bahrain is a member. Officials also signed a Joint Committee 

Decision on the Government Procurement Annex and a Protocol regarding changes to Annex 3-A of the 

Agreement related to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. In addition, the two 

governments discussed initiatives to monitor implementation and compliance with the labor and 

environmental obligations in the FTA and additional cooperative efforts related to labor rights and 

environmental protection. 

The discussion on labor issues during the JC meeting built upon a USTR-led mission to Bahrain earlier in 

the month under the auspices of the FTA labor chapter. During the visit, U.S. government officials from 

USTR and the Departments of Labor and State held meetings with Bahrain’s Ministry of Labour and 

Social Affairs as well as with representatives from labor and business groups and other government 

officials. As part of ongoing labor cooperation and capacity building activities, the U.S. Department of 

Labor is funding a project implemented by the International Labor Organization to increase the 

effectiveness of labor inspections by Bahrain’s labor ministry. During the next year, the two governments 

will continue to hold discussions between their respective experts on labor and environmental issues to 

ensure effective compliance with FTA obligations. In addition, the two governments will initiate steps to 

formally establish a Subcommittee on Labor under the Joint Committee of the FTA. 

The U.S.-Bahrain FTA also promotes the policy of advancing economic reforms and liberalization in the 

Middle East. The United States-Bahrain Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which took effect in May 

2001, covers investment issues between the two countries. 

3. Central America and the Dominican Republic 

a. Overview 

On August 5, 2004, the United States signed the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) with five Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) and the Dominican Republic. The CAFTA-DR is the first free 

trade agreement between the United States and a group of smaller developing economies. This agreement 

is creating new economic opportunities by eliminating tariffs, opening markets, reducing barriers to 

services, and promoting transparency. It is facilitating trade and investment among the seven countries 

and furthering regional integration. 

Central America and the Dominican Republic represent the third largest U.S. export market in Latin 

America, behind Mexico and Brazil. U.S. exports to the CAFTA-DR countries were valued at $19.5 

billion in 2009. Combined total two-way trade in 2009 between the United States and Central America 

and the Dominican Republic was $37.9 billion. 

The agreement entered into force for the United States and El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua during 2006, for the Dominican Republic on March 1, 2007, and for Costa Rica on January 1, 

2009. With the addition of Costa Rica, the CAFTA-DR is in force for all seven countries that signed the 

agreement. 

On August 15, 2008, the CAFTA-DR Parties implemented important changes to the agreement’s textiles 

provisions, including changing the rules of origin to ensure that pocket fabric in apparel is sourced from 

the United States or another CAFTA-DR Party. The Parties also implemented a reciprocal textile input 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |125 

sourcing rule with Mexico. Under this rule, Mexico will provide duty-free treatment on certain apparel 

goods produced in a Central American country or the Dominican Republic with U.S. input, and the 

United States will provide reciprocal duty-free treatment under the CAFTA-DR on certain apparel goods 

produced in a Central American country or the Dominican Republic with Mexican input. These changes 

will further strengthen and integrate regional textile and apparel manufacturing and create new economic 

opportunities in the United States and the region. 

b. Elements of the CAFTA-DR 

i. Operation of the Agreement 

The central oversight body for the CAFTA-DR is the Free Trade Commission (FTC), comprised of the 

U.S. Trade Representative and the trade ministers of the other CAFTA-DR Parties or their designees. 

The FTC is responsible for supervising the implementation and operation of the agreement. 

ii. Labor 

The CAFTA-DR Vice Ministers of Labor met in February 2009. The vice ministers reviewed progress on 

the implementation of the CAFTA-DR labor chapter, discussed labor cooperation and capacity building 

efforts to date, and identified priorities for future capacity building activities. Ongoing labor capacity 

building activities are supporting efforts to improve the enforcement of labor laws in the CAFTA-DR 

countries. In particular, U.S. Government assistance focuses on strengthening and modernizing the labor 

ministries and justice systems in the CAFTA-DR countries, and promoting a culture of compliance with 

labor laws in each CAFTA-DR country. 

The AFL-CIO and several Guatemalan unions filed a submission in April 2008 under the CAFTA-DR 

labor procedures, alleging that the government of Guatemala is failing to effectively enforce its domestic 

labor laws with regard to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, and acceptable 

conditions of work in five separate cases. The U.S. Department of Labor conducted a review and issued a 

public report on January 16, 2009 in which it identified significant weaknesses in Guatemala’s ability to 

enforce its labor laws and made recommendations on steps that Guatemala should take to address these 

concerns. Throughout 2009, an interagency team including USTR, the Department of Labor, and the 

State Department worked extensively with the government of Guatemala to address issues identified in 

the report. This engagement included several high-level meetings in Guatemala and the United States 

between U.S. and Guatemalan officials. The government of Guatemala has made some progress in 

addressing the concerns identified in the report, including the reinstatement of several workers that had 

been wrongfully discharged. The United States will continue to work closely in 2010 with the 

Guatemalan government in an effort to resolve outstanding issues and address systemic concerns with the 

administration and enforcement of labor law in Guatemala. 

iii. Environment 

In March 2009, the Parties held the fourth meeting of the CAFTA-DR Environmental Affairs Council 

(EAC). The EAC discussed the implementation of, and progress under, the environment chapter of the 

agreement. Among other things, the EAC reviewed the Working Procedures and a Public Outreach Plan 

for the Secretariat for Environmental Matters under the CAFTA-DR (“Secretariat”), appointed a new 

General Coordinator for the Secretariat, and considered presentations on various accomplishments under 

the CAFTA-DR Environmental Cooperation Program. The Council also met in a public session to 

provide civil society an opportunity to discuss matters relating to the implementation of the environment 

chapter, including environmental cooperation and capacity building. 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |126 

A submission alleging that El Salvador is failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws was filed 

with the Secretariat in 2009. The Secretariat also continues work on a submission concerning the 

Dominican Republic that was filed in 2007. USTR and other U.S. Government agencies are working 

with the Secretariat to improve the timeliness of its work on these submissions. 

iv. Trade Capacity Building 

Trade Capacity Building (TCB) programs and planning continued in 2009 with USTR, and with USAID 

and other donors, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, meeting bilaterally with CAFTA-DR 

partner countries. Discussions focused on the prioritization of CAFTA-DR partners’ trade capacity 

building objectives, including successful implementation and full utilization of the opportunities created 

by the CAFTA-DR. These bilateral meetings also focused on the prioritization and coordination of donor 

responses to countries’ TCB objectives, in areas such as customs, telecommunications, and intellectual 

property. (For additional information, see Chapter VI.A.5.)

v. Other implementation matters

The political crisis in Honduras hindered the United States’ ability to work with its CAFTA-DR partners 

on plurilateral matters in 2009. However, the United States continued to work closely with its CAFTADR partners on bilateral matters related to the agreement, with a particular focus on ensuring that its 

partners properly implement the agreement. For example, the U.S. Government worked with the 

government of Costa Rica to review and support its efforts to follow through on commitments it made to 

enact legislation making certain corrections to its intellectual property rights laws and to ensure effective 

regulations on agricultural chemicals. The United States also closely followed developments in Costa 

Rica’s telecommunications sector on opening wireless services to competition. Moreover, a joint USTR 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture delegation traveled to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua to 

meet with trade, agriculture, and customs officials in those countries to discuss the administration of 

agricultural tariff-rate quotas under the CAFTA-DR, which form an important component of U.S. market 

access under the agreement. 

4. Chile 

a. Overview 

The United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2004. 

The United States-Chile FTA eliminates tariffs and opens markets, reduces barriers for trade in services, 

provides protection for intellectual property, ensures regulatory transparency, guarantees nondiscrimination in the trade of digital products, commits the Parties to maintain competition laws that 

prohibit anticompetitive business conduct, and requires effective labor and environmental enforcement. 

In 2009, U.S. exports to Chile decreased by 26 percent to $8.8 billion, while U.S. imports from Chile 

decreased by 29 percent to $5.8 billion. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |127 

b. Elements of the United States-Chile FTA 

i. Operation of the Agreement 

The central oversight body for the Agreement is the United States-Chile Free Trade Commission (FTC), 

comprised of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Chilean General Directorate for International 

Economic Affairs or their designees. 

The FTC held its sixth meeting on November 10, 2009, during which the two governments evaluated 

progress on implementing the FTA during 2009. The FTC reviewed the operation of the specialized 

committees established under the FTA and concluded that good progress had been made. The Committee 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) issues and the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade met during 

2009. Experts from respective Labor Departments engaged in a number of robust technical level 

discussions in 2009, and a meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council has been scheduled for January 

2010. 

The United States and Chile also discussed modifications to Annex 7.8 of Chapter 7 (Technical Barriers 

to Trade) of the FTA to reflect a change for Chile in the government agency responsible for 

implementation of the Annex. The Parties expect to complete the modification in 2010. 

In early 2009, U.S. and Chilean officials concluded an agreement with an exchange of letters regarding 

U.S. certification of beef grade labeling. This agreement allowed for a partial resumption of American 

beef shipments to Chile in 2009. 

ii. Labor 

The FTA establishes a cooperative mechanism to promote respect for the principles embodied in the ILO 

Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and compliance with ILO Convention 182 on 

the Worst Forms of Child Labor. In 2009, the U.S. and Chilean Ministries of Labor held a number of 

technical exchanges on workforce development, labor inspections and labor market information. U.S. 

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Chilean Minister of Labor Claudia Serrano met in Buenos Aires in 

October 2009 to discuss areas of mutual interest including future cooperative activities. 

iii. Environment 

On January 20, 2010, the U.S. and Chilean governments convened the fifth meeting of the Environmental 

Affairs Council, co-led by USTR and the Department of State for the United States, and by the National 

Council on Environment (CONAMA) and the Foreign Ministry for Chile, to discuss implementation of 

the FTA’s environment chapter. At this meeting, both governments agreed to improve monitoring of 

implementation and compliance efforts related to the FTA’s environment chapter, including through an 

exchange of information related to any changes to environmental laws, regulations or other measures. 

The Environmental Affairs Council invited the U.S. Trade and Environmental Policy Advisory 

Committee (TEPAC) Members and Liaisons to participate in the January 2010 meeting and to have an 

exchange on trade and environment issues. Participants in the meeting reviewed public outreach 

activities and transparency in environmental decision making during 2009. The Parties agreed to hold the 

next Environmental Affairs Council meeting in Chile in late 2010 or early 2011. 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |128 

iv. Intellectual Property Rights 

The assessment that Chile’s protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) continues to 

fall well below expectations of a U.S. FTA partner was reflected in USTR’s 2009 decision to maintain 

Chile on the Special 301 Priority Watch List. There remain substantive deficiencies in Chile’s IPR laws 

and regulations and concerns about inadequate IPR enforcement, including significant copyright piracy of 

movies, music, and software. The United States also remains concerned about inadequate protection 

against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test and other data generated to obtain marketing approval 

for pharmaceutical products, and urges Chile to provide an effective system to prevent the issuance of 

marketing approvals for unauthorized copies of patented pharmaceutical products. Chile’s Congress 

continues to deliberate on a number of bills that must be enacted in order for Chile to make further 

progress in bringing its IPR regime into line with its commitments under the FTA. The United States will 

continue working with Chile to improve IPR protection and enforcement so as to ensure full 

implementation of the FTA. At the sixth meeting of the FTC in November 2009, the Commission 

recognized the constructive exchange of information between the United States and Chile regarding 

Chile’s implementation of its IPR commitments, while noting U.S. concerns regarding specific areas of 

Chile’s implementation. 

5. Israel 

This year, 2010, marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement, 

which was the first FTA entered into by the United States. It continues to serve as the foundation for 

expanding trade and investment between the United States and Israel by reducing barriers and promoting 

regulatory transparency. In 2009, U.S. goods exports to Israel declined by 36 percent to $9.3 billion, 

while U.S. imports from Israel decreased 18 percent to $18.3 billion. 

The central oversight body for the FTA is the United States-Israel Joint Committee. In December 2009, 

the Joint Committee met to exchange views on issues and concerns related to agricultural market access 

and telecommunications and government procurement, among other topics. Both governments 

acknowledged the progress and collaborative work that has taken place since the last meeting of the Joint 

Committee in Washington, DC which was in October 2007. At the 2009 meeting, the United States and 

Israel agreed that the two sides would explore discussions of a mutual recognition agreement on 

telecommunications and explore concerns voiced by U.S. exporters in meeting Israeli customs 

requirements. They also made progress on a number of market access issues related to standards, customs 

classification, and technical regulations. Both sides agreed to continue the dialogue through the U.S.-

Israel Working Group on Standards and Technical Regulations, which last met in March 2009. 

Recognizing in the 1990s that the FTA had not served to liberalize some aspects of bilateral agriculture 

trade, the United States and Israel concluded an Agreement Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in 

Agricultural Products (ATAP), which provided for duty-free or other preferential treatment of certain 

agricultural products. The 1996 agreement was extended through 2003, and a new agreement was 

concluded in 2004. In December 2009, the two sides agreed to extend that agreement for a second time, 

extending through December 31, 2010. The Working Group on Agriculture agreed to meet in early 2010 

to continue negotiations of a successor to the 2004 ATAP. 

Despite the impasse over agricultural free trade, during 2009, technical experts from the United States and 

Israel worked together to resolve some existing agricultural trade concerns. The Israelis removed a longstanding obstacle to U.S. pistachio exports to Israel, and the United States opened the U.S. market to 

Israeli eggplant and resolved customs questions on the transshipment of fresh herbs and flowers. 

However, many technical barriers still remain for U.S. agricultural products’ entry into the Israeli market. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |129 

In connection with the 2009 Special 301 out-of-cycle review (OCR), the United States and Israel are 

continuing negotiations to resolve longstanding issues with Israel’s intellectual property rights (IPR) 

regime for pharmaceutical products. 

6. Jordan 

In 2009, the United States and Jordan continued to benefit from their extensive economic partnership. A 

key element of this relationship is the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which was fully 

implemented on January 1, 2010. In addition, the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZs), established by 

Congress in 1996, allow products to enter the United States duty-free if manufactured in Israel, Jordan, 

Egypt, or the West Bank and Gaza. The program has succeeded in stimulating significant business 

cooperation between Jordan and Israel. 

Together these measures have played a significant role in boosting overall United States-Jordanian 

economic ties. U.S. goods exports were $1.2 billion in 2009, up 27 percent from 2008. QIZ products still 

account for more than half of Jordanian exports to the United States, but the QIZ share is declining 

relative to total products shipped under the FTA. This shift toward exporting products manufactured 

outside of the QIZs demonstrates the important role the FTA plays in helping Jordan diversify its 

economy. 

The United States-Jordan FTA has expanded the trade relationship by reducing barriers for services, 

providing cutting-edge protection for intellectual property, ensuring regulatory transparency, and 

requiring effective labor and environmental enforcement. The central oversight body for this Agreement 

is the United States-Jordan Joint Committee. The two sides met in December 2009 to exchange views on 

economic conditions in both countries and to discuss the development of bilateral cooperation in areas 

including: general economic cooperation, investment, agriculture, innovation, IPR protection and 

enforcement, customs issues, environmental and labor issues, and capacity building. The United States 

encouraged Jordan to focus on developing a strategy over the next 10 years to build on the success of the 

FTA, including increasing public awareness in Jordan on how to access FTA benefits and enhancing 

SME cooperation through the FTA. 

Both governments acknowledged the progress and collaborative work that has taken place since the last 

meeting of the Joint Committee in Washington, DC which was held in October 2008. The Jordanian 

government removed barriers to U.S. meat and poultry exports while in turn the United States completed 

a number of food safety reviews that would allow for the importation of certain horticultural products 

from Jordan. 

The two sides also reviewed the past year's activities under the Plan of Action developed in the October 

meeting of the Joint Committee in Washington, DC. As part of that discussion, officials committed to 

explore ways to intensify joint work on environment, labor and other issues. Jordan agreed to include the 

United States in consultations on its environmental law and proposed amendments and arranged for a set 

of outreach sessions on the margins of the meeting with key environmental stakeholders. 

The discussion on labor issues during the Joint Committee meeting built upon a USTR-led mission to 

Jordan in September 2009. During the visit, U.S. government officials from USTR and the Departments 

of Labor and State joined with officials from Jordan’s Ministry of Labor to hold a meeting of the Labor 

Subcommittee that was created by the FTA Joint Committee in 2006. In addition to extensive meetings 

with Jordanian government officials, the U.S. delegation met with representatives from labor unions and 

worker rights advocates as well as business groups. During the mission, U.S. officials visited factories 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |130 

located in QIZs to monitor working conditions and urge the government of Jordan to continue making 

improvements on labor rights issues, especially with regard to migrant workers in the apparel factories. 

To support this effort, the United States and Jordan are funding an International Labor Organization 

Better Work program, which will observe working conditions in garment factories and issue public 

reports. The project was launched in 2008, and began monitoring activities in QIZ factories in 2009. 

7. Morocco 

The United States and Morocco signed an FTA on June 15, 2004. The Agreement entered into force on 

January 1, 2006. The United States-Morocco FTA is a comprehensive agreement that is an important part 

of the effort to promote a more open and prosperous society. The FTA supports the significant economic 

and political reforms that are underway in Morocco and provides for improved commercial and market 

opportunities for U.S. exports to Morocco by reducing and eliminating trade barriers. 

Since the entry into force of the FTA, the U.S. goods trade surplus with Morocco has risen to $1.2 billion 

in 2009, up from $79 million in 2005 (the year prior to entry into force). U.S. goods exports in 2009 were 

$1.6 billion, up 12 percent from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from Morocco were $461 

million, down 48 percent. Morocco is now the 62nd largest export market for U.S. goods. 

The Joint Committee established by the FTA held its second meeting in November 2009. U.S. and 

Moroccan experts discussed FTA implementation issues including Morocco’s implementation of the 

tariff-rate quotas provided for under the FTA to afford U.S. wheat producers preferential access to the 

Moroccan market. The United States continues to have serious concerns about Morocco’s administration 

of these tariff-rate quotas. The Joint Committee also discussed regulatory matters relating to Moroccan 

exports of vegetables and Morocco’s chocolate standard. The Subcommittees on Agricultural Trade and 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters also met in 2009 and discussed concrete steps to monitor 

implementation of, and compliance with, the labor and environment chapters of the FTA. Both countries 

agreed to hold a number of discussions in the next few months between trade and environment experts 

and agreed to hold a Labor Subcommittee meeting in 2010. Morocco and the United States continued to 

work together to advance negotiations for an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an 

agreement intended to raise the standard for intellectual property rights enforcement internationally. 

8. North American Free Trade Agreement 

a. Overview 

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico (NAFTA) entered into force. All remaining duties and quantitative restrictions were eliminated, 

as scheduled, on January 1, 2008. NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, which now links 

449 million people producing over $16 trillion worth of goods and services. 

Trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners has soared since the agreement entered into 

force. U.S. two-way trade with Canada and Mexico exceeds U.S. trade with the European Union and 

Japan combined. U.S. goods exports to NAFTA partners have more than doubled between 1993 and 

2009, from $142 billion to $325 billion. 

By dismantling barriers, NAFTA has led to increased trade and investment, growth in employment, and 

enhanced competitiveness. From 1993 to 2008, cumulative foreign direct investment (stock) in the 

NAFTA countries has increased by over $2.3 trillion. Increased investment has brought better-paying 

jobs, as well as lower costs and more choices for consumers and producers. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |131 

The NAFTA was also the first U.S. free trade agreement to link free trade with obligations to protect 

labor rights and the environment. In connection with the NAFTA, the United States and Mexico also 

agreed to fund a development bank to address environmental infrastructure needs along the U.S.-Mexico 

border. 

b. Elements of NAFTA 

i. Operation of the Agreement 

The NAFTA’s central oversight body is the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC), comprised of the 

U.S. Trade Representative, the Canadian Minister for International Trade, and the Mexican Secretary of 

Economy or their designees. The FTC is responsible for overseeing implementation and elaboration of 

the NAFTA and for dispute settlement. 

The FTC held its most recent annual meeting in October 2009, in Dallas, Texas. At the meeting, the FTC 

agreed to build upon the work at the August 2009 North American Leaders Summit, where leaders agreed 

to “reinvigorate our trading relationship and to ensure that the benefits of our economic relationship are 

widely shared and sustainable.” The Commission asked officials to develop a workplan to incorporate 

three principles: competitiveness, strengthening institutions, and communications and transparency. 

The FTC also decided to strengthen both its relationship with the North American Commission for 

Environmental Cooperation (CEC), and its relationship with the North American Commission for Labor 

Cooperation (CLC). To accomplish this, the FTC established an ad hoc working group composed of 

senior trade officials to explore areas of potential collaboration between the FTC and the CEC, and 

designated senior trade officials to enhance collaboration between the FTC and CLC and further trilateral 

cooperation on trade and labor issues. 

ii. Rules of Origin 

In the fall of 2009, the NAFTA partners implemented two sets of changes to the NAFTA rules of origin. 

The first set was liberalizing changes to the NAFTA rules of origin. These changes cover approximately 

$100 billion in annual trilateral trade. The second set modified the NAFTA rules of origin to reflect 

changes agreed to under the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity and Coding 

System. 

 

At its October 2009 meeting, the FTC asked the Working Group on Rules of Origin (WGRO) to continue 

its work to liberalize the NAFTA rules of origin, with a view to reaching agreement at the working level 

early in 2010. The FTC also asked the WGRO to examine the rules of origin for environmental goods in 

order to determine whether liberalization of the rules of origin for such products would facilitate 

additional trade. 

iii. NAFTA and Labor 

The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), a supplemental agreement to the 

NAFTA, promotes effective enforcement of domestic labor laws and fosters transparency in their 

administration. The NAALC established a trinational Commission for Labor Cooperation, comprised of a 

Ministerial Council and an administrative Secretariat. In addition, each NAFTA Party has established a 

National Administrative Office (NAO) within its Labor Ministry to serve as a contact point with the other 

Parties and the Secretariat, to provide publicly available information to the Secretariat and the other 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |132 

NAOs, and to provide for the submission and review of public communications on labor law matters. 

The NAOs, together with the Secretariat, also carry out the Council’s Cooperative Activities program. 

No new submissions on labor matters were filed under the NAALC in 2009. 

iv. NAFTA and the Environment 

In 2009, the Parties continued their efforts to ensure that trade liberalization and efforts to protect the 

environment are mutually supportive. The FTC’s ad hoc working group of senior trade officials initiated 

work on enhancing the working relationship between the FTC and the CEC across relevant North 

American trade and environment issues. The CEC also continued its work on these issues through the 

implementation of its 2009 Operating Plan. (For additional information, see Chapter IV.) 

In November 1993, Mexico and the United States agreed on arrangements to help border communities 

with environmental infrastructure projects in furtherance of the goals of the NAFTA and the North 

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The Border Environment Cooperation 

Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB) are working with 149 

communities throughout the United States-Mexico border region to address their environmental 

infrastructure needs. As of September 30, 2009, the NADB had contracted a total of $1.03 billion in 

loans and/or grant resources to partially finance 130 infrastructure projects certified by the BECC with an 

estimated cost of $2.86 billion. 

9. Oman 

The United States-Oman FTA, which entered into force on January 1, 2009, builds on existing FTAs to 

promote economic reform and openness. Implementation of the obligations contained in the 

comprehensive agreement will generate export opportunities for U.S. goods and services providers, 

solidify Oman’s trade and investment liberalization, and strengthen intellectual property rights protection 

and enforcement. 

The first meeting of the FTA Joint Committee (JC), chaired jointly by the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative and Oman’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, took place in February 2010. Officials 

of the two governments discussed a broad range of trade issues, including implementation of Oman’s 

obligations under the labor and environment chapters and cooperative efforts in those areas. 

In order to advance common goals under the Labor Chapter of the FTA, USTR led a mission to Oman in 

October 2009 to hold discussions on labor issues. During the visit, U.S. government officials from USTR 

and the Departments of Labor and State held meetings with Oman’s Ministry of Manpower as well as 

with representatives from labor and business groups and other government officials. The mission was 

successful in furthering a dialogue on key labor issues, and U.S. officials encouraged Oman to continue to 

implement labor reforms that were discussed as part of the FTA negotiation and implementation process. 

As part of ongoing labor cooperation and capacity building activities, the U.S. Department of Labor is 

funding a project implemented by the International Labor Organization to increase the effectiveness of 

labor inspections by Oman’s Ministry of Manpower. During the next year, the two governments will 

schedule discussions between their respective experts on labor and environmental issues to ensure 

effective implementation monitoring and compliance with FTA obligations as well as cooperative efforts 

aimed at ensuring that trade and environmental goals are mutually supportive and sustainable. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |133 

10. Peru 

a. Overview 

The United States and Peru signed the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) on April 

12, 2006. The Peruvian Congress ratified the Agreement in June 2006 and a Protocol of Amendment in 

June 2007. On December 14, 2007, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 

Act became law, and the PTPA entered into force on February 1, 2009. 

The United States’ two-way trade with Peru was $8.8 billion in 2009, with U.S. goods exports to Peru at 

$4.8 billion. 

The PTPA eliminates tariffs and removes barriers to U.S. services, provides a secure, predictable legal 

framework for investors, and strengthens protection for intellectual property, workers, and the 

environment. The PTPA is the first agreement in force that incorporates groundbreaking provisions 

concerning the protection of the environment and labor rights that were included as part of the Bipartisan 

Agreement on Trade Policy developed by Congressional leaders on May 10, 2007. 

b. Elements of the PTPA 

i. Operation of the Agreement 

The PTPA’s central oversight body is the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Commission (FTC), comprised of the 

U.S. Trade Representative and the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism or their designees. 

The FTC is responsible for overseeing implementation and elaboration of the PTPA. The FTC was 

convened on February 18, 2010. At the FTC meeting, officials discussed bilateral trade and investment 

and economic issues of mutual interest, as well as the administration of the PTPA. Both governments 

acknowledged the progress over the last year to implement the commitments under the agreement, and 

discussed a plan to effectively monitor implementation of, and compliance with, environmental and labor 

obligations. Officials also discussed commitments under the Intellectual Property Rights chapter of the 

agreement. In addition, the Parties formally established the Committee on Agricultural Trade to provide a 

forum for monitoring and promoting cooperation on the implementation of the agricultural trade 

provisions in the PTPA, and the Standing Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters to promote 

cooperation and consultation on sanitary and phytosanitary issues. 

Additionally, officials discussed the importance of the PTPA to small and medium-sized businesses 

(SMEs) in both Parties’ economies and established a working group to develop ideas on how to further 

enhance the ability of SMEs to capitalize on the benefits of the PTPA. 

ii. Labor 

The Parties have continued to engage to ensure effective implementation of labor obligations under the 

PTPA labor chapter. USTR led an interagency trip to Peru in June 2009 to monitor the implementation of 

the labor obligations. The team met with representatives from the ministries of labor, trade and foreign 

affairs as well as with trade union and civil society groups. In January 2010, the Parties convened the 

first meeting of the Labor Affairs Council in Lima, Peru. This body is responsible for overseeing the 

implementation and progress of the labor chapter of the PTPA. The Council reviewed progress on the 

implementation of the PTPA’s labor provisions, discussed labor cooperation and capacity building efforts 

to date, and identified priorities for future capacity building activities. With trade capacity building funds, 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |134 

USAID supported the development and implementation of a national program to train new labor 

inspectors. 

iii. Environment 

The Parties have continued their work to ensure the proper implementation of environmental obligations 

under the PTPA Environment Chapter and the Annex on Forest Sector Governance. Since ratification of 

the PTPA in December 2007, Peru has made changes to its legal and regulatory regimes to implement its 

environmental obligations. For example, with extensive participation from the United States, Peru 

amended its Criminal Code to increase penalties for forest, wildlife, and environmental crimes. Peru also 

created a Ministry of Environment and a separate, independent entity to supervise forestry resources 

(OSINFOR). As provided in the Annex on Forest Sector Governance, Peru has 18 months from entry 

into force to fully implement its obligations under the Annex. 

In June 2009, a technical working group made up of representatives from both Parties met in Washington, 

DC to finalize provisions of the Environmental Cooperation Agreement work plan. Areas that were 

identified for possible capacity building initiatives included: strengthening the legal, policy, and 

institutional framework for effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws; improving 

biodiversity conservation and management of forests, protected areas, and other ecologically important 

ecosystems; and increasing transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making and 

enforcement. 

On July 15, 2009, the Parties held the first meeting of the Forest Sector Sub-Committee, a forum for the 

Parties to exchange views and share information on any matter arising under the Annex on Forest Sector 

Governance. During this meeting, Peru formally established a mechanism for consultation with 

stakeholders in Peru on implementation of the Environment Chapter and Annex. The Committee held an 

open session with civil society focusing on the concerns of stakeholders related to the new forestry and 

wildlife law and Peru’s compliance with its obligations under the PTPA. Stakeholders expressed 

appreciation for the efforts of the United States in having an open, transparent, and inclusive 

implementation process. The second meeting of the Forest Sector Sub-Committee is planned to take 

place in the spring of 2010. 

iv. Trade Capacity Building 

The Committee on Trade Capacity Building held its first meeting in March 2009 in Lima, Peru. This 

Committee is charged with seeking the prioritization and coordination of assistance to support effective 

implementation of the PTPA and to adjust to more liberalized trade. To this end, Peru presented a 

preliminary national trade capacity building strategy to address these objectives, highlighting areas such 

as telecommunications, intellectual property and agricultural standards. The Committee is in the process 

of working with donors to address these priorities. 

11. Singapore

The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement has been in force since January 1, 2004. U.S. twoway goods trade totaled $37 billion in 209, up 17 percent from 2003 (the year before the FTA’s entry into 

force). U.S. goods exports were $21.6 billion, up 31 percent from 2003, and U.S. goods imports were 

$15.4 billion, up 2 percent from 2003. 

The United States and Singapore held the fifth annual FTA review in December 2009 to assess 

implementation of the agreement. The two governments agreed that implementation remains on track and 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |135 

discussed ways to deepen the bilateral relationship. During the review, the two sides discussed a range of 

issues covered by the FTA, including trade in textiles and apparel, telecommunications, and protection of 

intellectual property rights. 

The two sides also discussed the implementation of the environment chapter and environmental 

cooperation efforts. The United States and Singapore agreed to continue exchanging information on each 

country’s implementation efforts and how to improve monitoring of compliance with the obligations of 

the environment chapter. 

The FTA review also provided an opportunity for labor officials from both governments to discuss labor 

issues and potential areas for labor cooperation. As a result, Singapore’s Ministry of Labor has expressed 

an interest in studying the United States’ system for mediating collective bargaining disputes and 

improving labor-management relations. 

B. Other Bilateral and Regional Initiatives 

1. The Americas 

The United States continues to implement, enforce, and benefit from four free trade agreements (FTAs) 

with the following countries in the Americas: Canada and Mexico under the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA); Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 

(CAFTA-DR); Chile; and Peru. Highlights of USTR’s FTA-focused activity in this region during 2009 

included: entry into force of the United States-Peru FTA, entry into force of the CAFTA-DR with respect 

to Costa Rica, successful Free Trade Commission meetings under the NAFTA and the United StatesChile FTA, and ongoing efforts to manage implementation issues with our FTA partners. During 2009, 

USTR placed additional emphasis on implementation of the labor and environment commitments under 

these FTAs. Further details on USTR’s implementation and enforcement activities associated with these 

FTAs can be found in Chapter III. A. 

During 2009, the U.S. Government worked to address concerns relating to our FTAs with Colombia and 

Panama. These agreements have been signed, but have not yet been considered by Congress. In the case 

of Colombia, the Administration worked to identify what further steps Colombia’s government needs to 

take to ensure that workers’ fundamental labor rights are protected in law and practice. USTR published 

a notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the Colombia FTA, led an interagency team 

on a fact-finding trip to Colombia, and discussed these matters with stakeholders, the Colombian 

government, and the U.S. Congress. In the case of Panama, the Administration worked with Panama’s 

government to address concerns relating to certain aspects of Panama’s labor regime and its tax 

transparency rules. 

a. Trade and Investment Framework Agreements and other Bilateral Trade Mechanisms 

USTR’s meetings under our Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), Joint Committees on 

Trade and Investment (JCTIs), and Bilateral Consultative Mechanisms (BCMs) with non-FTA partners in 

the Americas continue to provide effective means of discussing market opening opportunities, including 

improved access for small and medium-sized businesses, and resolving trade issues with those 

governments. USTR met with five trading partners in the region in TIFA/JCTI/BCM meetings during 

2009, achieving progress toward solving outstanding trade problems and creating more comprehensive 

trade policy dialogues. Highlights included: 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |136 

 At a December 9, 2009 meeting of the BCM in Brasilia, the United States discussed with the 

government of Brazil a number of bilateral and multilateral issues of mutual interest, including 

trade facilitation, technical barriers to trade, intellectual property protection, and investment 

issues. Building upon an initiative discussed by Ambassador Ron Kirk and Brazilian Minister of 

Foreign Relations Celso Amorim during a September 2009 visit to Brazil, both sides agreed to 

pursue discussions to deepen the bilateral trade and investment relationship framework. 

 At a June 5, 2009 Uruguay-United States Trade and Investment Committee meeting, the United 

States exchanged ideas with the government of Uruguay on a variety of bilateral economic topics 

under our TIFA, including intellectual property protection, investment, labor, and the 

implementation of two protocols to the TIFA. These protocols, covering substantive 

commitments in the areas of trade facilitation and public participation in trade and environment, 

were signed on October 2, 2008 and entered into force on June 5, 2009. 

 The United States exchanged ideas with the government of Paraguay on a number of bilateral 

issues of mutual interest at a November 20, 2009 United States-Paraguay JCTI meeting. The 

United States and Paraguay renewed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on intellectual 

property rights issues, which enumerates Paraguayan commitments to implement institutional and 

legal reforms and to strengthen intellectual property rights enforcement and prosecution. The 

MOU will remain in effect through the end of 2011. We agreed to create a working group to 

exchange information on the experience of small and medium-sized enterprises in the United 

States and Paraguay, and to identify opportunities for the JCTI work agenda to address the needs 

of such businesses and their workers. 

 On November 9, 2009, the United States and Ecuador held the first meeting in over ten years of 

the United States-Ecuador Trade and Investment Council (TIC). At the TIC meeting the two 

sides discussed a broad range of trade and investment related issues, including the U.S.-Ecuador 

Bilateral Investment Treaty, workers rights, intellectual property, the Andean Trade Preference 

Act, technical barriers to trade (TBT), and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The forum 

provided an opportunity to exchange views on our respective concerns and to discuss possible 

areas of cooperation, such as with respect to TBT and SPS matters. 

b. Other Priority Work 

The United States continued its engagement with other countries in the region aimed at fostering bilateral 

trade relations and resolving trade problems during 2009. Highlights of USTR’s other priority activities 

in the region include: 

 As a party to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and to NAFTA, Canada 

allows U.S. suppliers to compete on a nondiscriminatory basis for its federal government 

procurement covered by the two agreements. Canada does not have commitments to provide 

market access for procurement at the sub-federal level. As a result, the United States does not 

provide access to sub-federal procurement markets in the United States. Canadian concerns about 

"Buy American" provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 prompted 

initiation of bilateral discussions in late 2009 on reciprocal sub-federal market access. An 

agreement was signed in February 2010 which provides for permanent U.S. access to Canadian 

provincial and territorial procurement contracts in accordance with the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). In addition, the agreement enables 

American companies to compete for Canadian provincial and municipal construction contracts 

not covered by the GPA through September 2011. The United States will provide reciprocal 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |137 

access for Canadian companies to 37 states already covered by the GPA and a limited number of 

Recovery Act programs. 

 USTR prepared Reports to the U.S. Congress on the implementation of the Hemispheric 

Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008 (the HOPE II Act) and the 

operation of the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. 

In the wake of Haiti’s January 12, 2010 earthquake, USTR launched new efforts with the U.S. 

textiles and apparel industry to help Haiti recover, and is working with the U.S. Congress as it 

crafts legislation. (For additional information, see Chapter V.B.8.)

 Faced with an impending review under a U.S. preference program and the possibility of being 

placed on the Special 301 Watch List, The Bahamas implemented amendments to its Copyright 

Act and Regulations. These amendments narrowed the scope of its compulsory licensing regime 

for the reception and transmission of copyrighted works to permit only the compulsory licensing 

of copyrighted works broadcast free over-the-air. The amendments, which went into effect on 

October 1, 2009, were designed to fulfill a commitment made by The Bahamas in a November 

2000 Letter of Understanding with the United States. 

 Mexico remains one of the most important markets for U.S. agricultural products. Although U.S. 

agricultural exports to Mexico decreased by 21 percent in 2009 to roughly $12 billion, it still 

ranked as the U.S.’s second largest agricultural export market. In 2009, the United States worked 

to remove Mexican barriers to U.S. rice exports. In addition, the United States continues to 

monitor Mexico’s use of sanitary and phytosanitary measures to ensure that they are not applied 

in a way that would improperly impede U.S. exports. 

 As a result of the 1998 Canada Record of Understanding on Agricultural Matters, the United 

States-Canada Consultative Committee on Agriculture (CCA) and the Province/State Advisory 

Group were formed to strengthen bilateral agricultural trade relations and to facilitate discussion 

and cooperation on matters related to agriculture. The CCA met in May 2009 and December 

2009 to discuss issues concerning trade in livestock, fruits, vegetables, seed, plant, and 

biotechnology as well as to reinforce the close working relationship between the two 

governments and their respective agricultural sectors. 

 On June 17, 2009, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s National Organic 

Program (NOP) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency completed an exchange of letters 

setting out a determination of equivalence of regulations on organics. This determination, 

negotiated by a USTR-led interagency delegation on behalf of the United States, is the first

international organics equivalence agreement. Under a determination of equivalence, producers 

and processors that are certified to the NOP standards by a USDA-accredited certifying agent do 

not have to become certified to the Canada Organic Product Regulation (COPR) standards in 

order for their products to be represented as organic in Canada. Likewise, Canadian organic 

products certified to COPR standards may be sold or labeled in the United States as organically 

produced. The determination is expected to lead to greater market opportunities for organic 

producers in both countries. 

2. Europe and the Middle East 

USTR's Office of Europe and the Middle East coordinates policy towards, and manages bilateral trade 

relations with, the European Union (EU) and its 27 Member States, non-EU European countries, Russia 

and its neighbors, the Middle East, and North Africa. Ongoing priorities include: managing U.S.-EU 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |138 

trade relations to promote shared interests while addressing chronic and emerging EU barriers to U.S. 

exports; developing stronger trade and investment relations in the Middle East and North Africa to 

advance U.S. trade and commercial policy objectives, including through the implementation of free trade 

agreements (FTAs); and working with Russia and surrounding countries to resolve trade concerns, expand 

trade and investment opportunities, foster a commercial and trade policy grounded in the rule of law, and 

integrate Russia into the global trade community through membership in the World Trade Organization. 

a. Ensuring Free Trade Agreements Work for American Workers, Farmers and Businesses 

The United States continued efforts to implement and enforce the provisions of U.S. FTAs with Bahrain, 

Israel, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman, to ensure that U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers reap the benefits 

of these agreements. Highlights of FTA-focused activity in the Middle East and North Africa during 

2009 included the entry into force of the United States-Oman FTA, and successful FTA Joint Committee 

meetings with Israel, Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain to address U.S. concerns and improve the functioning 

of each agreement. Joint Committee meetings were supplemented by ongoing contact with partner 

governments to manage implementation issues. During 2009, USTR focused additional attention on the 

implementation of the obligations in the labor and environment chapters of its FTAs with regional 

partners. (For additional information, see Chapter III.A.)

b. Managing and Deepening U.S.-EU Trade Relations 

The U.S. economic relationship with the EU is the largest and most complex economic relationship in the 

world, with transatlantic trade and investment flows (goods and services trade plus earnings/payments on 

investment) averaging approximately $3.2 billion in value each day. This enormous volume of trade and 

investment promotes economic prosperity both in the United States and Europe. 

In 2009, the United States interacted extensively with counterparts in the major EU governing institutions 

(the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Council) and EU Member State 

governments on key issues for U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses, such as EU restrictions on U.S. 

agricultural exports, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), and the WTO Doha Round. 

Principal areas of U.S.-EU trade policy engagement during 2009 included: 

 Beef: The United States concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that opened the EU 

market to substantial quantities of high-quality U.S. beef produced without growth-producing 

hormones. The MOU followed a decade of WTO-authorized U.S. trade sanctions imposed on the EU 

as a result of a successful U.S. challenge in the WTO of the EU scientifically unjustified ban on beef 

produced with growth-promoting hormones. 

 Environmental Regulations: The United States continued monitoring the implementation of EU 

environmental regulations that affect U.S. firms, including the EU’s regulation on the Registration, 

Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), the EU directive on the 

Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

(RoHS), and the EU regulation on Classification, Labeling and Packaging. 

 Intellectual Property: The U.S.-EU IPR Working Group met twice in 2009. The United States 

engaged the EU on key IPR issues, including common goals in key third country markets, the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations, customs cooperation, and other areas of IPR 

cooperation. The United States also increased bilateral engagement with a number of EU Member 

States, including Poland, Hungary, and Italy. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |139 

 Science-Based Regulation: USTR led continued engagement with the EU regarding U.S. concerns 

over EU regulations restricting imports of several major U.S. food and agricultural products. Several 

of the problematic regulations, which resulted in restrictions on the importation and marketing of U.S. 

poultry and agricultural biotechnology products, also were the focus of enforcement efforts under 

WTO dispute settlement procedures that will continue into 2010. USTR also sought to engage EU 

and Member State officials in discussions aimed at avoiding divergent approaches to the regulation of 

food products derived from livestock cloning. (For additional information, see Chapter V.A.)

 Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC): Under the TEC umbrella, collaboration with the EU 

continued throughout 2009 on several initiatives and on a broad range of issues, including efforts to 

encourage regulatory best practices and information sharing on scientific, technical and related 

challenges, and to promote investment, IPR, innovation, and emerging technologies. The TEC met in 

October 2009 to review progress on these issues. 

 Bananas: In December 2009, the United States finalized negotiations with the EU on an agreement 

designed to lead to the settlement of a longstanding WTO dispute over the EU’s discriminatory 

bananas trading regime. Final settlement of the banana disputes will require the completion of certain 

ratification steps by the parties to this agreement – as well as by the parties to the complementary 

agreement signed by the EU and several Latin American banana-supplying countries – and WTO 

certification of the EU’s new tariffs on bananas. (For additional information, see Chapter V.A.) 

c. Promoting a More Mature United States-Russia Trade Relationship 

U.S. bilateral trade relations with Russia during 2009 focused on continuing engagement aimed at 

developing a stronger trading relationship. The United States engaged with the government of Russia to 

secure implementation of several bilateral agreements dating from 2006, which covered the inspection of 

meat processing facilities, trade in agricultural equipment, IPR protection, and import licensing for 

products with cryptographic capabilities. Additionally, USTR raised concerns over Russia’s increasing 

protectionism, which has manifested itself through measures such as unjustified sanitary and 

phytosanitary restrictions, more restrictive tariff-rate quotas, and higher tariffs. 

The United States revitalized a bilateral working group with Russia to address IPR concerns as a means to 

address issues regarding the 2006 agreement between the Government of the United States of America 

and the Government of the Russian Federation on Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property 

Rights. Additionally, USTR officials will participate in several working groups under the newlyestablished Bilateral Presidential Commission. 

In 2009, the United States continued to aggressively pursue work with Russia related to the latter’s efforts 

to join the WTO. Russia’s WTO accession talks progressed steadily until June 2009 when Prime Minister 

Putin announced a shift in policy focus, suspending efforts on WTO accession, and intensified Russia’s 

efforts to complete a customs union between Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. The United States 

continues to support Russia’s accession to the WTO as a separate entity, and, like other WTO Members, 

awaits further explanation from Russia on the implications of the customs union initiative for Russia’s 

trade regime and how the customs union will affect its bid for WTO accession. (For additional 

information, see Chapter II.K.6.)

d. Enhancing the Trade and Investment Dialogue with Turkey 

U.S. bilateral economic ties with Turkey have grown steadily over the last 15 years. However, there is 

additional room for growth in trade given Turkey’s continuing development as a market, as well as its 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |140 

emerging role as a regional business hub. Recognizing Turkey’s importance as a trading partner, USTR, 

along with the U.S. Department of Commerce, will co-chair U.S. Government participation in a new 

forum for engagement on economic and trade issues: the Framework for Strategic Economic and 

Commercial Cooperation (Framework). The Framework aims to reduce barriers to bilateral trade and 

investment, create opportunities for U.S. workers, farmers and firms, and otherwise enhance bilateral 

economic cooperation. The Framework will ensure regular coordination and review at a senior political 

level of our already strong economic partnership. 

e. Furthering U.S. Trade Policy Goals through Trade and Investment Agreements 

Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), Trade and Investment Cooperation Agreements 

(TICAs), and Trade and Investment Cooperation Forums provide an effective structure for addressing and 

resolving bilateral trade problems in countries throughout Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. 

Currently, 13 such agreements are in force throughout the region. In 2009, USTR organized bilateral 

meetings with Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Ukraine under these various frameworks, achieving 

notable progress towards solving outstanding trade issues and fostering an effective trade dialogue with 

partner countries. Key achievements in 2009 included: 

 Saudi Arabia: Significant efforts by Saudi Arabia to strengthen its IPR enforcement regime. 

 Ukraine: The United States secured a roll-back of increased Ukrainian import tariffs on 

automobiles and refrigeration equipment. 

 Libya: Following the normalization of U.S. diplomatic relations, the United States conducted 

negotiations with the Libyan government on a bilateral TIFA. 

f. Other Priority Trade Activities 

FTAs, along with various trade and investment agreements, provide the context for U.S. trade and 

investment policy in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. However, the United States also engages 

with key countries and regions outside of these established frameworks to promote enhanced trade and 

investment ties, increased U.S. exports, the development of intraregional economic ties, and WTO 

accession for economies in the region seeking to join the Organization. (For additional information, see 

Chapter II.K.6.) 

 Egypt: In 2009, the United States successfully launched a new Strategic Partnership for traderelated and investment issues with Egypt. The new Partnership will pave the way for substantive 

discussions throughout 2010 and beyond on a range of issues of mutual interest, such as customs, 

standards, IPR, labor, investment, and the environment. 

 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries: The United States has maintained its engagement 

with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and its six Member States as the GCC continues to 

develop and harmonize rules, standards, import regulations, and conformity assessment systems 

affecting U.S. trade with the GCC states. The United States has outlined its specific concerns and 

established an ongoing dialogue with the GCC. 

 Georgia: The United States sought to strengthen U.S. trade relations with Georgia in 2009 

through the TIFA, Strategic Dialogue and other mechanisms. Notably, the United States and 

Georgia held preliminary discussions on enhancing the existing United States-Georgia Bilateral 

Investment Treaty. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |141 

 Southeastern Europe: In 2009, the United States continued to engage the countries of this region 

on a variety of trade issues including WTO accession, the U.S. GSP program, IPR, and other 

bilateral trade issues 

3. Japan, Korea, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum 

a. Japan 

United States-Japan Trade Relations 

The United States pursued a broad agenda with Japan through a variety of fora to help expand new 

opportunities for small and large U.S. exporters, as well as for U.S. companies with a direct presence in 

the Japanese market. The bulk of this work took place through the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and 

Competition Policy Initiative (Regulatory Reform Initiative), both in the Initiative’s High-Level Officials 

Group as well as in its various sectoral and cross-sectoral working groups. The United States sought 

actions by Japan to further open its market, improve its business environment, and level the playing field 

by enacting reforms in areas such as insurance, intellectual property, regulatory transparency, 

telecommunications, and distribution. Following several months of work, the Initiative’s annual Report 

to the Leaders was released on July 6, 2009, which listed accomplishments across a broad array of issues. 

Examples include: 

 Strengthening Japan’s Copyright Law to make illegal unauthorized Internet downloads of music 

and motion pictures; 

 Approving new food additives already in wide use around the world and in the United States, 

creating new opportunities for exports of U.S. food products; 

 Strengthening Japan’s competition law regime, such as by enacting tougher penalties for cartel 

leaders; 

 Cutting the lag time in Japan’s regulatory process for the introduction of new medicines and 

medical devices, including by increasing the number of approval reviewers and reducing waiting 

times for pharmaceutical clinical trial consultations; and 

 Enacting a new law allowing non-bank providers of electronic fund transfer services to operate in 

Japan. 

For more on the Regulatory Reform Initiative, including the full Report to the Leaders as well as a 

summary list of progress highlights, see: http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/japan-koreaapec/japan/regulatory-reform-and-competition-policy-initiative. 

Senior-level engagement with Japan also took place through the U.S.-Japan Trade Forum, which 

convened in October 2009 to address bilateral trade issues including serious concerns relating to the 

automotive trade, as well as to Japan’s failure to bring its measures on beef and beef product imports from 

the United States into line with science and international standards. The Trade Forum also served as a 

high level forum for discussing broader trade policy issues including coordination vis-a-vis third country 

concerns. USTR also continued to engage the Japanese government throughout the year in other ways by 

increasing coordination and, where possible, jointly addressing third-country trade and other matters of 

common concern. 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |142 

b. Republic of Korea 

FTA 

The United States and the Republic of Korea successfully concluded the negotiation of a free trade 

agreement on April 1, 2007, and signed the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), 

on June 30, 2007. The Administration believes this FTA has the potential to bring significant economic 

and strategic benefits for the United States and is committed to working together with Korea to move the 

KORUS FTA forward. This will involve working through a number of outstanding issues, particularly 

related to automobiles and beef. Concerns have also been raised regarding non-tariff measures more 

generally. In 2009, the United States Government initiated a thorough review of the FTA and is 

consulting closely with Congress and U.S. stakeholders to identify the most effective approaches for 

dealing with these concerns. (For additional information, see Chapter III.A.12.) 

United States–Korea Trade Relations 

In addition to USTR’s regular contact with counterparts in the Korean government, formally scheduled 

bilateral trade consultation meetings are held between the two governments to address potential bilateral 

trade issues as they emerge. These bilateral trade consultation meetings, led by USTR with participation 

from the full range of U.S. international economic agencies, serve as the primary forum for discussing 

and resolving trade-related issues and are augmented by a broad range of senior level policy discussions. 

In 2009, bilateral trade consultations were held on three occasions, in March, July, and December. 

Among the bilateral issues that were addressed in 2009 are: 

 In September 2009, Korea published final rules that will allow non-Korean labs to test lithiumion batteries for conformity with Korea’s safety regulations. The decision benefits U.S. consumer 

electronics producers, who need approved batteries to power their final products (laptops, cell 

phones, etc.). These producers were concerned that requiring battery testing at four Korean labs, 

as originally planned, would have led to bottlenecks. In December 2009, the Korean government 

also amended the applicable regulation so that manufacturers can use non-Korean labs to 

document conformity with Korea’s energy efficiency regulations for refrigerators; 

 The U.S. Government worked closely with Korea to ensure continued market access for U.S. 

voice over internet protocol (VOIP) equipment as the Korean government transitions to a VOIPbased network; 

 Following the expiration of the mandate to install the Korea-unique WIPI software platform on 

cell phones in April 2009 and the Korea Communications Commission’s decision to provide 

Apple with a license to provide location-based services in October 2009, the Apple iPhone was 

launched in the Korean market in late November 2009. Apple iPhones accounted for 10 percent 

of cell phones sold in Korea in December 2009; 

 In August 2009, Korea lifted the ban on U.S. live swine exports which had been imposed 

following the first occurrence of H1N1 virus in the United States; and 

 Korea eliminated its home country approval requirement for medical devices in August 2009. 

Previously, manufacturers of medical devices undergoing a regulatory review in Korea were 

required to show that the products had been already approved for sale in the “home country.” 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |143 

In addition, since Korea reopened its market to imports of U.S. beef in June 2008, it has provided reliable 

market access for U.S. beef and beef products. From January through November 2009, U.S. exports of 

beef and beef products to Korea have reached $186 million, making Korea the fourth largest U.S. beef 

export market. 

The United States and Korea also cooperated extensively in a wide range of multilateral fora to advance 

open markets. Korea was a strong partner of the United States in the WTO Non-Agricultural Market 

Access (NAMA) negotiations, supporting the push for ambitious liberalization. Korea has been an 

active participant in efforts to strengthen international IPR enforcement by joining the United States and 

others in negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Korea hosted the most recent 

ACTA negotiations in November 2009. In APEC, the two countries worked closely together on efforts to 

strengthen regional economic integration in the Asia-Pacific, including on initiatives to promote trade in 

cross-border services and to simplify rules of origin documentation and procedures. 

c. APEC 

Overview 

Since it was founded in 1989, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum has been 

instrumental in promoting regional and global trade and investment. It has provided a forum for APEC 

Leaders to meet annually since 1993, beginning at Blake Island in the United States. The United States 

will host APEC again in 2011. 

In 2008, the 21 APEC member economies collectively accounted for 44 percent of world trade and 54 

percent of global GDP. In 2009, U.S.-APEC total trade in goods was $1.6 trillion. The significant 

growth in U.S. trade in the Asia-Pacific region underscores the importance of the region as a market for 

U.S. exports and the significant role APEC continues to play in promoting trade and investment 

liberalization and facilitation in the region. 

The United States worked closely with other APEC economies, in particular with Singapore and Japan, 

the APEC host economies in 2009 and 2010 respectively, in pursuing an ambitious agenda to strengthen 

economic integration and facilitate trade in goods and services in the Asia-Pacific region. 

2009 Activities 

Supporting the Multilateral Trading System and Resisting Protectionism: APEC Leaders and Ministers in 

2009 provided strong statements of support for an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the WTO Doha 

Round negotiations. They also stressed the importance of greater substantive engagement at all levels 

utilizing all possible avenues, including direct engagement between WTO Members to evaluate and close 

the remaining gaps. Ministers also reaffirmed their commitment to keep markets open and avoid all 

forms of protectionism, as well as their commitment to refrain from raising new barriers to trade and 

investment to the end of 2010 and beyond if necessary.

Regional Economic Integration: Strengthening economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region remains 

the top U.S. trade priority in APEC. The U.S. approach to the regional economic integration (REI) 

agenda in APEC has been to emphasize addressing pressing and cutting-edge barriers to trade and 

investment in the region. To that end, in 2009, the United States, in partnership with Australia, gained 

endorsement of the APEC Principles on Cross-Border Trade in Services and a future action plan on 

services, which taken together will provide a strong basis for our efforts to facilitate and promote services 

trade in the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, APEC agreed to an ambitious work program to promote 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |144 

trade and investment in environmental goods and services, with an emphasis on addressing non-tariff 

barriers and enhancing market drivers of environmental goods, and improving understanding and market 

access for environmental services. APEC also launched the U.S.-initiated Environmental Goods and 

Services Information Exchange website to promote collaboration on trade and investment in cutting-edge 

environmental technologies in the Asia-Pacific region. APEC Leaders also agreed to accelerate work to 

strengthen REI in 2010, including by intensifying efforts to narrow gaps in APEC economic policies in 

key areas of APEC’s trade and investment agenda, including services, the digital economy, investment, 

trade facilitation, rules of origin, and standards/technical barriers to trade. 

Making It Cheaper, Easier, and Faster to Trade in the Region: The United States, working with 

Singapore as host and other APEC economies, undertook a number of initiatives in 2009 to make it 

cheaper, easier, and faster to trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Like-minded APEC economies, including 

Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States, agreed to adopt a selfcertification of origin model for free trade agreements based on common and general operating 

guidelines. This will make it easier for companies to take advantage of preferential trade deals in the 

region. APEC Leaders also endorsed the multi-year Supply-Chain Connectivity Framework to reduce the 

time, cost, and uncertainty of moving goods and supplying services throughout the region by improving 

logistics and transportation networks. Additionally, APEC Leaders committed to take concrete steps to 

reduce trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, including on the Internet, improve patent 

cooperation, and increase information sharing between intellectual property authorities and stakeholders. 

In addition, the United States, in conjunction with Japan, gained agreement among APEC economies to 

make customs information, including on tariffs and rules of origin, more transparent and accessible to 

stakeholders in the region. The United States continued to promote in APEC the use of international 

standards, transparency in the development of standards and regulations, and the avoidance of 

protectionist technical barriers that can impede trade and investment in the region. These initiatives will 

in particular benefit small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by reducing the time and costs 

associated with trading in the region. 

Industry Dialogues: APEC interacts directly with the business community in its three industry dialogues: 

the Automotive Dialogue, the Chemical Dialogue and the Life Sciences Innovation Forum. The APEC 

Automotive Dialogue this year focused on challenges to the auto industry in the midst of a global 

downturn that significantly affected the region’s autos and auto parts producers. The Chemical Dialogue, 

co-chaired by the United States and Malaysia, continued its discussions on regulatory and trade-related 

developments, and expanded its work into new areas, including sustainable development and climate 

change, outreach to SMEs, the strategic role of chemicals, and capacity building to implement best 

practices for chemical regulation. The Life Sciences Innovation Forum, for which the United States 

chairs the Planning Group, focused on improving returns to trade and investment for innovative life 

sciences products, optimizing the use of emerging technologies, promoting regulatory harmonization and 

capacity building to combat the counterfeiting of medical products. 

4. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan 

a. China 

See 2009 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance. 

b. U.S.-Hong Kong Trade Relations 

The United States continued efforts to expand trade with Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of 

the People’s Republic of China, in particular by working to open its market to U.S. beef and beef 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |145 

products, which have been restricted since December 2003. Hong Kong’s market is currently open to 

deboned beef from animals less than thirty months of age. Hong Kong authorities conducted a 

verification visit to beef processing facilities in the United States in October 2009. Pending Hong Kong’s 

submission of its findings, the United States will engage Hong Kong to establish science-based access for 

U.S. beef and beef products in 2010. In 2009, Hong Kong became the fourth largest market for exports of 

U.S. food and beverage products, exceeding $1.5 billion. 

c. U.S.-Taiwan Trade Relations 

During 2009, the United States worked to expand opportunities for U.S. exports to Taiwan. Workinglevel officials engaged Taiwan throughout the year on the range of issues impacting bilateral trade and 

investment ties under the U.S.-Taiwan Bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) 

process. 

The United States continued to press Taiwan to provide market access for the full range of U.S. beef and 

beef products in a manner consistent with World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines for 

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as with Taiwan’s own risk assessment which found 

that U.S. beef is safe. As a result of these efforts, the United States and Taiwan concluded a new sciencebased and OIE-consistent bilateral protocol providing for expanded market access for U.S. beef and beef 

products on October 22, 2009. After the protocol entered into force on November 2, however, Taiwan’s 

Legislative Yuan (LY) approved an amendment to Taiwan’s Food Sanitation Act that had the effect of 

banning the import of ground beef and certain offals from the United States. Such a ban is inconsistent 

with Taiwan’s obligations under the protocol. Furthermore, Taiwan authorities have taken a range of 

administrative measures that have disrupted trade and created uncertainty in the market. The United 

States will continue to press Taiwan to act consistently with its obligations under the bilateral protocol 

and to refrain from taking measures that overly burden trade in beef and beef products. 

In the area of sanitary and phytosanitary matters, other issues that the United States continued to discuss 

in detail with Taiwan included the establishment of permanent pesticide maximum residue levels for U.S 

horticultural products and grains, avian influenza restrictions on imports of poultry meat and related 

products that do not comply with international guidelines, and Taiwan’s ban on the use of ractopamine, a 

lean muscle promotant, in pork and pork products. 

The United States continued to engage Taiwan on issues relating to fulfilling its WTO Country Specific 

Quota (CSQ) for importation of U.S. rice, while expressing concerns that the ceiling price mechanism 

was non-transparent and causing unnecessary trade disruptions. In 2007 and 2008 public sector rice 

tenders for U.S. rice repeatedly failed due to Taiwan’s ceiling price mechanism. Since 2008, Taiwan has 

implemented destination testing requirements for shipments of U.S. long grain rice, thereby causing an 

additional tender to fail. Throughout 2009, the United States worked with Taiwan to seek improvements 

to the rice import system and to address the shortfalls in Taiwan’s procurement of U.S. rice in 2007 and 

2008. As a result, it appears that Taiwan will fulfill its obligations to contract for the procurement of U.S. 

rice in 2009. 

IPR protection and enforcement also continues to be an important issue in the United States-Taiwan trade 

relationship. The United States recognizes Taiwan’s continuing efforts to improve enforcement of IPR, 

and on January 16, 2009, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that Taiwan had been 

removed from the Special 301 Watch List. In April 2009, the LY amended the Taiwan Copyright Law to 

require Internet service providers (ISPs) to undertake specific and effective notice-and-takedown actions 

against online infringers to avoid ISP liability for the infringing activities of users on their networks. 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |146 

Taiwan acceded to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) in July 2009. Taiwan 

estimates that procurement covered by the GPA has a total value of approximately $6 billion. The United 

States will work closely with Taiwan as Taiwan implements its obligations under the GPA. 

The United States has also continued to engage Taiwan on concerns raised by the pharmaceutical and 

medical device industries that Taiwan’s procedures for medical product pricing and reimbursement fail to 

adequately recognize the value of innovative medical products for patients in Taiwan. The United States 

encourages Taiwan to continue to engage in collaborative consultations with relevant stakeholders to 

consider improving such policies in order to better facilitate the development of innovative products and 

improve patients’ access to such products. 

5. Southeast Asia and the Pacific 

a. Free Trade Agreements 

The United States continued to implement, monitor and enforce its free trade agreements with Singapore 

and Australia, both of which have led to significant increases in U.S. exports to these countries. (For 

additional information, see Chapter III.A.)

b. Trans-Pacific Partnership 

In December 2009, the United States announced its intention to enter into negotiations on a regional AsiaPacific trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with the objective of shaping a highstandard, broad-based regional agreement. The decision to proceed followed detailed consultations with 

Congress and stakeholders. This agreement will create a potential platform for economic integration 

across the Asia-Pacific region, a means to advance U.S. economic interests with the fastest-growing 

economies in the world, and a tool to expand U.S. exports, which are critical to U.S. economic recovery 

and the creation and retention of high-paying, high-quality jobs in the United States. 

Successful conclusion of the TPP negotiations will require a high-standard, 21st century agreement with a 

membership and coverage that provides economically significant new market access opportunities for 

U.S. workers, manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, service providers, and small businesses. Through this 

regional agreement, the United States will seek to promote new technologies and emerging economic 

sectors, create new opportunities for U.S. small and medium-sized businesses to increase exports to the 

region, and help U.S. firms participate in production and supply chains in order to encourage investment 

and production in the United States. The United States will also seek to enhance the focus of the 

agreement on environmental protection and conservation, transparency, workers rights and protections 

and development. 

Currently, the TPP negotiating partners are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, 

Singapore, and Vietnam. These countries form an initial group of “like-minded” countries that share a 

commitment to concluding a high-standard regional trade agreement. U.S. participation in the TPP 

agreement is predicated on the shared objective of expanding this initial group to include additional 

countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Several additional countries already have expressed initial 

interest in participating in the agreement. 

In developing U.S. negotiating objectives for the TPP, the Obama Administration is committed to 

establishing a new partnership with Congress. It intends to hold regular and rigorous consultations on all 

elements of the agreement in order to develop negotiating positions consistent with both Administration 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |147 

and Congressional priorities and objectives. At the same time, the Administration is committed to broadbased, detailed, and open discussions with stakeholders throughout the process. 

c. Managing U.S.-Southeast Asia and Pacific Trade Relations

During 2009, the United States worked to further enhance its already strong trade and investment 

relations with countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The U.S. Government actively engaged 

bilaterally and regionally, including under Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) and 

other bilateral dialogues, ASEAN-U.S. Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement, TPP, APEC, 

WTO and other trade and investment fora. 

During 2009, the United States held numerous TIFA meetings and other trade dialogues with Brunei 

Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. These discussions 

were aimed at resolving long-standing trade issues in such areas as customs, intellectual property 

protection, market access for industrial and agricultural products, regulatory and other non-tariff barriers 

facing U.S. manufacturers and service suppliers, and other trade-related issues, including worker rights 

and protections. The United States also used these consultations to work with our trading partners in the 

region to monitor implementation of their WTO and bilateral commitments and to coordinate economic 

assistance projects to support their implementation and reform efforts. 

At the same time, the United States worked with its trading partners in the region to develop or advance 

new initiatives of common interest. The United States and Vietnam continued discussions throughout 

2009 aimed at negotiating a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which will further improve upon the 

protections for U.S. investors in Vietnam. The U.S. Government also continued to explore BIT 

negotiations with Indonesia, as well as the prospects for a Comprehensive Partnership between the United 

States and Indonesia to deepen bilateral economic relations. In addition, the United States worked closely 

with the Lao government to monitor progress and support the implementation of the U.S.-Lao Bilateral 

Trade Agreement and to support Lao’s ongoing negotiations to join the WTO. 

d. The U.S.-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement

The ten member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) collectively rank as 

the United States’ fifth largest trading partner and fourth largest export market. Although trade declined 

by 20 percent in 2009 to $142 billion, it had grown steadily in previous years. With robust economies 

and a total population of about 550 million people, the ASEAN market provides significant potential 

opportunities for U.S. companies. 

The United States and ASEAN members concluded a TIFA in August 2006 and since then have been 

working to build upon already strong trade and investment ties to further enhance their economic 

relationship as well as promote ASEAN regional economic integration. In 2009, the United States 

intensified its work under the TIFA, developing new proposals for joint work. The United States and 

ASEAN agreed to proceed with work on bilateral agreements on trade facilitation, dialogues on trade and 

environment and trade finance, and a government-business dialogue. Work in these areas is already 

underway. These new initiatives join the existing set of TIFA work plan items that include cooperation 

on standards and support for the ASEAN Single Window customs project. 

e. Other Priority Activities 

The United States and Indonesia convened the first Asia-Pacific Regional Dialogue to Promote Trade in 

Legally Harvested Forest Products in September 2009. The Regional Dialogue brought together trade 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |148 

and forestry officials from nine countries – Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, 

Singapore, the Solomon Islands, the United States, and Vietnam – to discuss best practices and new ways 

to promote trade in legally harvested forest products and government-to-government cooperation in 

combating illegal logging. To advance this work, participants agreed to hold a second meeting of the 

Regional Dialogue in the first half of 2010. 

6. Sub-Saharan Africa 

a. Trade and Investment Relations 

In 2009, the Administration and USTR continued to work closely with a wide variety of government, 

private sector and civil society stakeholders to strengthen U.S.-African trade and investment relations. 

The Administration seeks both to expand markets for U.S. goods and services in sub-Saharan Africa and 

to facilitate African efforts to bolster African economic development through increased global, regional, 

and bilateral trade. For the last several years, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), enacted 

in 2000, has been at the center of U.S.-African engagement on trade and investment. By providing dutyfree entry into the United States for almost all African products, AGOA has helped expand and diversify 

African exports to the United States, while at the same time fostering an improved business environment 

in many African countries. Forty sub-Saharan African countries were eligible for AGOA in 2009. (For 

additional information, see Chapter V.B.8.c.)

The United States-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, informally known as 

“the AGOA Forum,” is an annual ministerial-level forum with AGOA-eligible countries. The eighth 

meeting of the AGOA Forum was held in August 2009 in Nairobi, Kenya. Ambassador Ron Kirk and 

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis participated in the 2009 Forum, along with senior 

officials from more than a dozen U.S. Government agencies. They met with numerous African trade 

ministers, leaders of African regional economic organizations, and representatives of the African and 

American private sectors and civil society to discuss issues and strategies for advancing trade, investment, 

and economic development in Africa as well as ways to increase two-way U.S.-African trade. 

Ambassador Ron Kirk also advanced the U.S.-African dialogue on trade and investment issues during 

visits in 2009 to South Africa, Ethiopia, and Senegal. 

b. Trade and Investment Framework Agreements 

In May 2009, the U.S. Government and the government of Angola signed a Trade and Investment 

Framework Agreement (TIFA), marking the eleventh such agreement between the United States and subSaharan African partners. The United States also has TIFAs with Ghana, Liberia, Mauritius, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa 

(COMESA)26, the East African Community (EAC)27, and the West African Economic and Monetary 

Union (also known by its French acronym, UEMOA)28. Each TIFA has a detailed work plan. USTR 

leads interagency engagement with TIFA partners on a wide range of issues. In addition to high-level 

 

26 COMESA members are Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, 

Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Mad agascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, 

Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

27 EAC members are Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. 28 UEMOA members are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and 

Togo.
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |149 

TIFA Council meetings, which are held every one to two years, there is an ongoing dialogue with most 

TIFA partners that may include periodic working-level meetings and digital video conferences. 

In 2009, USTR led U.S. participation in six TIFA Council meetings – with the COMESA, Liberia, 

Mozambique, Mauritius, Nigeria, and Rwanda. The agenda at these meetings typically included bilateral 

trade and investment disputes, implementation of AGOA, cooperation in the WTO, trade capacity 

building assistance, export diversification, trade and investment promotion, and the business environment. 

At the March 2009 TIFA Council meeting with Nigeria, U.S. and Nigerian officials reached agreement on 

an IPR Action Plan that establishes a framework for bilateral cooperation on improving IPR protection 

and enforcement efforts in Nigeria. 

In addition to the TIFAs, the United States has a Trade, Investment and Development Cooperative 

Agreement (TIDCA) with the five countries of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Botswana, 

Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland. In 2009, USTR led U.S. participation in working-level 

discussions with SACU countries on key issues covered under the 2008 TIDCA, including customs and 

trade facilitation, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and trade and 

investment promotion. 

c. Other Activities 

 In August 2009, the United States and Mauritius launched negotiations toward a bilateral investment 

treaty that would strengthen investor protections and encourage the continuation of market-oriented 

economic reforms in Mauritius. 

 Ambassador Ron Kirk held two meetings in 2009 with the Trade Advisory Committee on Africa, 

comprised of representatives from the U.S. private sector and civil society, to discuss trade policy 

priorities for Africa and issues critical to enhancing the U.S.-African trade and investment 

relationship. (For additional information, see Chapter VI.B.)

7. South and Central Asia

a. Reinvigorating the United States-India Trade Relationship 

The United States and India reaffirmed the importance of the bilateral relationship by announcing the 

creation of a Strategic Dialogue in July 2009. The United States–India Trade Policy Forum (TPF), 

created in 2005, serves as a core element of the Economics, Trade and Agriculture pillar of the Strategic 

Dialogue and remains the principal bilateral forum for discussing trade and investment. U.S. and Indian 

chairs of the TPF’s five Focus Groups – Agriculture, Innovation and Creativity, Investment, Services, and 

Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers – met regularly throughout 2009 to discuss the range of issues on the 

bilateral agenda, including intellectual property rights, market access in the services sector, tariff and nontariff measures, agricultural and industrial standards issues, and investment policy concerns. The two 

governments also agreed to reconstitute the Private Sector Advisory Group (PSAG) which will continue 

to provide strategic recommendations to the government-to-government deliberations under the TPF. The 

two governments agreed to convene a PSAG meeting in early 2010. 

Key features of the United States-India trade policy engagement during 2009 included: 

 The two countries agreed to conclude a Framework for Cooperation on Trade and Investment in early 

2010 that will outline a number of shared objectives for increasing two-way trade and investment and 

a work plan to guide the TPF in the pursuit of those objectives. 
III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |150 

 The United States and India agreed to explore collaborative initiatives in the Information 

Communications Technology (ICT) and energy and environmental services sectors. USTR and the 

Indian Commerce Ministry also agreed to promote greater involvement by U.S. and Indian small and 

medium enterprises (SMEs) in bilateral trade and in the world economy. 

 Ambassador Ron Kirk and Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma met a number 

of times throughout 2009. They discussed ideas for pursuing an enhanced bilateral relationship. 

They also met in the context of the Doha Round negotiations to find common ground towards 

concluding a balanced and ambitious outcome. 

b. Contributing to Regional Stability

In support of top national security objectives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, in 2009 USTR 

strengthened engagement with all three countries as part of a broader effort to boost trade, employment, 

and sustainable development. Ambassador Ron Kirk met with the Afghan and Pakistani Commerce and 

Finance Ministers, and USTR hosted Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) meetings with 

Pakistan in April and with Afghanistan in October. Working with the U.S. Departments of State, 

Commerce, and Agriculture, USTR participated in trilateral and other high-level meetings in Washington, 

DC, Islamabad, Kabul, and Baghdad. Key highlights from 2009 included: 

 USTR and the Department of State continued to seek passage of Reconstruction Opportunity Zone 

(ROZ) legislation to provide duty-free benefits for certain products exported to the United States from 

Afghanistan and critical border areas of Pakistan. USTR also led discussions on how Afghanistan, 

Pakistan, and Iraq could increase use of existing trade benefits under the U.S. Generalized System of 

Preferences (GSP). 

 USTR supported negotiations between Afghanistan and Pakistan on a modern transit trade agreement 

that would boost regional trade and help create economic opportunities in both countries. 

 Pakistan and the United States agreed to intensify engagement on trade and investment issues by 

launching the U.S.-Pakistan Joint Trade Study Group. USTR-led engagement with the government of 

Pakistan also helped resolve a major long-standing bilateral investment dispute in 2009. 

 The United States agreed to continue its technical and advisory support for accession of Afghanistan 

and Iraq into the WTO. 

c. Promoting National Reconciliation and Lasting Peace in Sri Lanka 

The United States and the government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) held the 7th TIFA Council Meeting in 

Colombo, Sri Lanka, in October 2009. It was their first meeting since Sri Lanka’s civil war ended in May 

2009. The United States and Sri Lanka discussed market access and investment climate concerns and 

initiated capacity building initiatives on intellectual property rights and the U.S. GSP program. On the 

margins of the TIFA, the GOSL organized a private-public conference, “Fostering National 

Reconciliation through Economic Development and Jobs.” Forty U.S. companies participated in the 

conference. U.S. companies also visited Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province and had individual meetings with 

Sri Lankan government officials and local companies to identify investment opportunities in Sri Lanka. 
 

III. Bilateral and Regional Negotiations and Agreements |151 

d. Advancing U.S. Engagement with Central Asia 

In 2009, USTR supported the Administration’s strategy towards Central Asia by hosting the U.S.-Central 

Asia TIFA Council meeting in Washington, DC in October in order to bolster cooperation with the 

Central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in support of 

U.S. operations in Afghanistan (TIFA observer) and to strengthen and diversify U.S.-Central Asia trade 

relations more broadly. The United States launched bilateral dialogues with each Central Asia TIFA 

partner to focus on country-specific issues, and the TIFA members agreed to establish a new mid-year 

meeting of a TIFA working group. 

For Kazakhstan, the United States convened a bilateral meeting with Kazakhstani authorities to discuss 

Kazakhstan’s impending Customs Union with Russia and Belarus and prospects for Kazakhstan’s WTO 

accession. USTR discussed U.S. concerns about higher duties under the common external tariff, which 

entered into force on January 1, 2010, and the future of Kazakhstan’s WTO market access commitments. 

e. Other Regional Priorities 

In October 2009, USTR and the government of Maldives signed a TIFA to provide a forum for the two 

governments to examine ways to enhance bilateral trade and investment. In 2009, Maldives rejoined the 

International Labor Organization (ILO) and updated its labor laws to be in line with ILO conventions. As 

a result, USTR reviewed Maldives’ application for reentry into the GSP program, and in December 2009, 

the President signed a proclamation reestablishing Maldives’ GSP beneficiary status. 

USTR continued to pursue TIFAs with the governments of Bangladesh, Iraq, and Nepal. 
IV. Other Trade Activities |153 

IV. OTHER TRADE ACTIVITIES 

A. Trade and the Environment 

The Administration has enhanced work on environment and trade matters across multiple fronts, 

including through multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade initiatives. On the multilateral front, the 

United States has continued to be a global leader in seeking to discipline harmful fisheries subsidies and 

eliminate barriers to trade in environmental technologies and services, including clean energy 

technologies, through the WTO as part of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations. During 

the course of 2009, the Administration increased focus on implementation efforts for the free trade 

agreements currently in force. Additionally, the Administration has broken new ground in actively 

engaging our trading partners to address illegal logging and associated trade and to identify the potential 

for a positive agenda in areas where international trade policy and efforts to address global climate change 

overlap. In keeping with the increased integration of environmental considerations across multiple 

multilateral, regional, and bilateral fronts, this report includes a detailed assessment of recent 

developments on trade and environment in specific sections devoted to these various fora. 

1. Multilateral Fora 

As described in more detail in the WTO section of this report, the United States is active on all aspects of 

the DDA trade and environment agenda. In particular, the United States has worked closely with other 

countries to explore approaches for taking early action to liberalize trade in climate-friendly technologies 

in order to build momentum for broader DDA negotiations on environmental goods and services and to 

facilitate concrete action on the trade and climate change front. In the Rules Negotiating Group, the 

United States continues to lead in pressing for stronger disciplines on fisheries subsidies that contribute 

significantly to global overcapacity and overfishing. The Administration also has sought to orient 

activities in the OECD Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment to focus on value-added 

contributions to ongoing WTO work, as well as strong analytical research on the interface between trade 

and climate change policies. 

USTR continues to participate in formulating and carrying out U.S. policy regarding the implementation 

of various multilateral environmental agreements to help ensure compatibility between those activities 

and U.S. environment-related trade policy. Examples include implementation in respect of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Basel 

Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the 

Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and the Stockholm 

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. USTR also participates in formulating and carrying out 

U.S. policy regarding activities conducted under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program 

and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the UNFCCC 

Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen, Denmark, USTR, together with other U.S. agencies, worked 

closely with other countries to ensure that any agreement on long term cooperative actions to combat 

climate change is consistent with existing international commitments on trade, including the protection of 

intellectual property rights. 

USTR has been particularly active in two international commodity agreements to identify and pursue 

opportunities to facilitate increased international trade and sustainable development. In the International 

Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), USTR has led Administration efforts to promote increased market 
IV. Other Trade Activities |154 

transparency and provide support for capacity building projects to facilitate tropical timber trade in the 

context of sustainable management of tropical forests. In the International Coffee Organization (ICO), 

USTR has led Administration efforts to revitalize this organization, particularly to strengthen the ICO’s 

role in developing and implementing capacity building projects and in promoting the development and 

dissemination of innovations and best practices, such as in the area of finance. 

2. Bilateral and Regional Activities 

The environment chapters of the trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and Korea include 

obligations to implement and enforce provisions in a number of multilateral environmental agreements, 

such as those covering trade in endangered species, conservation of marine resources, and wetlands 

protection. In addition, the environment chapter in the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement includes an 

annex on forest sector governance that will lead to substantial improvements in Peru’s management of its 

biodiversity-rich tropical forest resources. The individual FTA sections of this report provide detailed 

descriptions of the specific activities under each environment chapter during the last year with particular 

emphasis on enhanced bilateral and regional engagement to monitor implementation of FTA 

environmental provisions. 

The Administration was very active in 2009 in building on initiatives to address illegal logging and 

associated trade. USTR, joined by the State Department, led a broadly representative interagency 

delegation to the second meeting of the Bilateral Forum under a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) between the United States and China on combating illegal logging and associated trade. This 

MOU establishes a framework for bilateral cooperation on combating illegal logging and associated trade, 

particularly with respect to goods traded by either country. As a result of this meeting, the United States 

and China agreed to undertake regular exchanges of trade data for forest products and to explore 

opportunities for public-private cooperation in promoting transparency and trade in legally-harvested 

forest products. 

USTR also chairs a Working Group on Combating Illegal Logging and Associated Trade under the 

United States-Indonesia Trade and Investment Agreement. The Working Group was created by a first of 

its kind MOU with Indonesia that was concluded in 2006. In 2009, the Working Group met in May in 

Washington, DC and in September in Jakarta, Indonesia. During the course of the meeting in Jakarta, the 

United States and Indonesia considered a joint public report of the Working Group, the exchange of 

information on bilateral timber trade, and CITES implementation related to forest products. Additionally, 

USTR led a multi-agency workshop on amendments to the Lacey Act with participation by the 

Indonesian government, private sector, and civil society groups. 

The Administration has taken important steps to build on the bilateral agreements with China and 

Indonesia in initiating a new Asia-Pacific Regional Dialogue to Promote Trade in Legally-Harvested 

Forest Products. A first meeting of the Regional Dialogue, co-chaired by the United States and Indonesia, 

took place in September in Jakarta and included participation by trade and forestry officials from 

Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, the Solomon Islands, and Vietnam. The 

Regional Dialogue illustrates the Administration’s commitment to finding effective and creative solutions 

to trade-related environmental challenges. Future meetings of the Regional Dialogue will include 

additional countries in the region and will explore opportunities to exchange information and develop a 

common understanding of relevant issues, including collaborative, regional approaches to address them. 

3. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 

The Administration continues to work closely with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade and 

environment policies in each of the three countries are implemented in a manner that is mutually 
IV. Other Trade Activities |155 

supportive. In 2009, USTR led efforts to improve cooperation between the NAFTA Free Trade 

Commission (FTC) and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) on these issues. These 

efforts included a letter from the FTC ministers to their CEC counterparts inviting enhanced cooperation 

between the bodies on trade and environment issues, and the FTC’s creation of an ad hoc working group 

of senior officials, among other things, to explore ways to improve collaboration between the FTC and the 

CEC. USTR continues to work actively with EPA and other agencies in representing the United States in 

addressing North American trade and environmental issues, including under the NAFTA environmental 

side agreement—the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)—and the 

border environmental infrastructure agreements. These agreements were designed to enhance the 

mutually supportive nature of expanded North American trade and environmental improvement. 

At its 2009 annual meeting, the CEC Council discussed the implementation of the NAAEC. The Council 

agreed on a new policy direction for the CEC that is focused on the key environmental priorities of North 

America, in the context of increasingly liberalized trade and more integrated economies, and is positioned 

to deliver clear results. This new direction will focus on three priorities for the work of the CEC during 

the period 2010-2015: healthy communities and ecosystems; climate change and a low carbon economy; 

and greening the economy in North America. The Council also met with and obtained input from the 

public on various aspects of the CEC’s program including its trade and environment component. 

B. Trade and Labor 

The Administration’s trade policy agenda includes a strong commitment to ensuring that workers and 

their families in America and around the world benefit from trade. The Administration has enhanced 

engagement with trade partners on addressing respect for labor rights and has increased monitoring and 

enforcement of free trade agreement (FTA) labor provisions. The Administration also has increased 

monitoring of adherence to the worker rights provisions in U.S. trade preference programs and dialogue 

on labor rights with key trading partners. 

To assist workers who have been adversely affected by imports and jobs being moved overseas, President 

Obama signed into law the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA), as 

part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The TGAAA reauthorized Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs; expanded TAA coverage to more workers and firms, including 

workers and firms in the service sectors; made benefits available to workers whose jobs have been sent 

“off-shore” to another country (as opposed to covering a more limited set of shifts in production); 

improved workers’ training options; and increased the affordability of health insurance coverage. (For 

additional information, see Chapter V.B.7.)

1. Multilateral and Regional Fora 

In the Ministerial Declaration adopted during the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore (1996), and 

reaffirmed in Ministerial Declarations adopted during Ministerial Conferences in Doha (2001) and Hong 

Kong (2005), the WTO Members renewed their commitment to the observance of internationally 

recognized core labor standards and took note of collaboration between the WTO and ILO Secretariats. 

In 2009, the WTO and the ILO continued their collaboration on issues of common interest with the 

release in September of a joint study on Globalization and Informal Jobs in Developing Countries. The 

study is intended to promote a better understanding of the linkages between trade and employment in 

developing countries (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/download/globalinform.pdf). 

In the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the Administration has continued to promote 

the discussion of labor rights as one of the topics relevant to the efforts to strengthen regional economic 
IV. Other Trade Activities |156 

integration. In APEC, the United States continues to support model measures on labor that could be 

included in FTAs in the Asia-Pacific region and discussion of labor rights in studies of member 

economies’ FTAs as part of overall efforts to promote the negotiation of high quality trade agreements by 

APEC member economies. (For additional information, see Chapter III.B.3.)

The Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labor (IACML) is a meeting of the Western 

Hemisphere’s labor ministers, held approximately every two years under the auspices of the Organization 

of American States to promote hemispheric cooperation on labor issues. The IACML responds to the 

labor mandates agreed to by heads of state in the Summit of the Americas process. For additional 

information on the IACML, visit http://www.sedi.oas.org/ddse/english/cpo_trab.asp. 

In October 2009, at the Sixteenth IACML, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the labor ministers 

unanimously adopted a Declaration that reaffirmed their obligations as members of the ILO and 

commitments to promote, respect, and realize the principles with respect to the fundamental labor rights 

contained in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The labor ministers 

recognized the positive contribution of trade to the promotion of growth, employment, and development 

and committed to continue to analyze the labor dimension of free trade agreements. The ministers also 

endorsed a Plan of Action that, among other things, establishes a working group chaired by the United 

States on “decent work to face the global economic crisis with social justice for a fair globalization.” The 

working group’s responsibilities include addressing the social dimension of globalization, regional 

integration processes, and FTAs. 

2. Bilateral Agreements and Preference Programs 

a. FTAs 

U.S. FTAs contain obligations concerning the consistency of each party’s labor laws with international 

standards (with recent FTAs obligating each party to implement in its law and practice the fundamental 

labor rights as stated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work), not to 

fail to effectively enforce its labor laws, and not to waive or derogate from those laws in a manner 

affecting trade or investment. Additionally, the labor provisions obligate each party to designate an office 

within its labor ministry to serve as a contact point for purposes of the labor chapter and create labor 

cooperation and capacity building mechanisms through which the parties will work together to enhance 

opportunities to improve labor standards. USTR and DOL engage our FTA partners on labor issues as 

part of our ongoing dialogue on monitoring implementation of our agreements. (For additional 

information, see Chapter III.A.)

In consultation with USTR, the Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA) in the Bureau of International 

Labor Affairs (ILAB) of the U.S. Department of Labor serves as the contact point for purposes of 

administering responsibilities under the labor provisions of free trade agreements and the North American 

Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), including the labor cooperation mechanisms. For additional 

information on OTLA and its procedures, visit: 

http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/programs/otla/index.htm 

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/otla/proceduralguidelines.htm

In 2009, the Administration worked closely with the governments of Colombia and Panama to address 

outstanding labor concerns relating to those two countries. With respect to Colombia, the Administration 

worked to secure progress and a path forward on labor-related concerns. This consisted of engaging the 

government of Colombia on efforts to ensure that Colombia’s labor law meets international standards and 

to address violence against trade unionists, including initiatives to bring the perpetrators to justice. With 
IV. Other Trade Activities |157 

respect to Panama, the Administration worked with that government to develop a strong package of labor 

reforms intended to clarify the application of labor law in Panama and the means for workers to assert 

their rights under the law. The Administration continues to work with Panama to implement these 

reforms. 

b. Other Bilateral Agreements and Preference Programs 

President Obama certified to Congress that Haiti met the necessary requirements to continue duty-free 

treatment for certain Haitian-made apparel and other articles under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity 

through the Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II). Pursuant to the requirements of the 

HOPE II, Haiti established an independent labor ombudsman’s office, a Better Work program operated by 

the ILO to assess compliance with core labor rights, and a mechanism to ensure that producers that wish 

to be eligible for duty-free treatment participate in the Better Work program. 

U.S. trade preference programs, including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Andean 

Trade Preference Act (ATPA), the Caribbean Basin Trade Preferences Act (CBTPA), and the Generalized 

System of Preferences (GSP), require the application of workers rights statutory eligibility criteria. Four 

workers rights-related petitions remained under review as part of the 2009 GSP Annual Review process, 

three of which were filed in 2007 (Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Uzbekistan) and one of which was 

filed in 2006 (Niger). USTR and other U.S. Government officials engaged with these governments 

through U.S. embassies in those countries, their embassies in Washington, DC, and other bilateral fora to 

monitor progress and press for action to address the problems cited in the petitions. Review of whether 

these countries are meeting the GSP workers rights criteria will continue in 2010. An ATPA petition 

concerning workers rights in Ecuador was filed in 2005 and review of practices in that country continued 

in 2009. Additionally, the Administration continues to consider whether to accept for review GSP worker 

rights-related petitions filed in 2008 concerning Iraq and Sri Lanka. As part of that process, USTR and 

other U.S. Government agencies have engaged with the governments of Sri Lanka and Iraq to address the 

allegations. 

In December 2009, the President approved reinstatement of GSP benefits for the Republic of the 

Maldives because of steps its government has taken to improve the legal framework to afford workers in 

the Maldives internationally recognized workers rights. The Maldives was removed from GSP eligibility 

in 1995 because of workers rights concerns. The Administration will continue to work closely with the 

Maldives through TIFA and other mechanisms to help ensure that the country’s progress on the legal 

framework and its implementation continue. 

A commitment by China for a dialogue on labor issues was included among the outcomes of the United 

States-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. This provides an avenue for engagement with China on 

labor rights issues in connection with our trade and economic relationships. 

In April 2009, the United States and Vietnam held a TIFA meeting and labor rights in Vietnam was one 

of the issues discussed. In particular, USTR sought progress by the government of Vietnam on providing 

freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in conformity with the workers rights 

requirements of the GSP.29 In conjunction with this meeting, Vietnamese officials – including two 

directors-general from Vietnam’s Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) – met with 

U.S. Department of Labor ILAB officials to discuss Vietnam’s labor reform efforts and to plan for the 

next bilateral Labor Dialogue that will take place in 2010. 

 

29 Vietnam is seeking designation as a GSP beneficiary country.
IV. Other Trade Activities |158 

Also in 2009, the United States engaged with several other countries on labor issues in the context of 

TIFA meetings and other bilateral trade mechanisms. Most notably, the United States discussed worker 

rights issues with Pakistan during a TIFA meeting in April, and with Afghanistan and Sri Lanka during 

TIFA meetings in October. The United States also raised labor issues with Ecuador during a meeting of 

the Trade and Investment Council in November. 

In addition, the United States signed TIFAs with Angola and the Maldives, and a Trade and Investment 

Cooperation Forum agreement with Iceland in 2009, all of which contain commitments to promote 

respect for labor rights and to engage in discussions on trade and labor issues as part of ongoing dialogue 

under the agreements. 

C. Small and Medium Sized Business Initiative 

On October 5, 2009, Ambassador Ron Kirk announced a new USTR initiative aimed at increasing exports 

by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) located in the United States. USTR launched this 

initiative as part of the President’s strategy to transform the U.S. economy by rebalancing the path to 

economic growth. 

A new focus on SMEs is seen as a critical component of stimulating job growth in the United States. 

Research shows that businesses engaged in trade increase employment faster, and pay better wages, than 

businesses purely serving domestic markets. There are more than 27 million SMEs in the United States, 

but currently only one percent of these companies export goods or services, and most of them only export 

to one country. If the United States can increase the number of SMEs that export, as well as the number 

of markets to which they export, it will support more employment growth. 

USTR has taken several significant actions to support its SME objectives. 

1. New AUSTR Designated for Small Business, Market Access, and Industrial Competitiveness 

On January 21, 2010, Ambassador Ron Kirk designated James Sanford as Assistant United States Trade 

Representative for Small Business, Market Access, and Industrial Competitiveness. This new 

responsibility for small business issues enhances his existing responsibilities related to market access and 

industrial competitiveness issues, helps us coordinate our SME activities across the agency, and provides 

a USTR contact point for small businesses. 

2. International Trade Commission Studies on SMEs 

On October 5, 2009, Ambassador Ron Kirk requested the U.S. International Trade Commission to 

prepare a series of reports on U.S. SMEs in international trade in order to better understand SME 

performance and to help guide U.S. trade policy and trade promotion activities. These reports will 

provide: 

 Review of the available data about SME exporting in regard to both goods and services, which 

was released on January 12, 2010. The full report can be found at 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4125.pdf; 

 Comparison of U.S. SMEs with SMEs in other OECD countries, including the European Union, 

to benchmark our performance (due June 2010); and 
IV. Other Trade Activities |159 

 In-depth analysis of SME issues where available data are limited, especially in regard to service 

industries and to indirect exporting, i.e., SME inputs to exports of larger firms (due in late 2010). 

3. SME Conference Hosted by Ambassador Ron Kirk 

On January 21, 2010, Ambassador Ron Kirk hosted a conference titled “Jobs on Main Street, Customers 

Around the World: A Positive Trade Agenda for U.S. Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises” at the 

Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC. Attended by over 200 participants, 

speakers at the conference included Administrator Karen G. Mills of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Deputy Secretary of Commerce Dennis Hightower, and Deputy U.S. Trade 

Representative Miriam Sapiro. The event featured three roundtable discussions with leaders of small 

businesses from around the country focused on trade opportunities and challenges confronting SMEs, 

including key constraints as well as possible Administration policy and trade promotion activities that 

could support increased export activity by SMEs. A video presentation of the conference’s speeches and 

discussions are available at http://www.ustr.gov. 

4. Office Reviews of SME-Related Activities 

Under the SME initiative, each office in USTR has been developing ideas and proposals on ways to 

enhance activities that could benefit SMEs, including a review of outreach strategies to ensure that USTR 

is receiving advice from a range of SMEs. Several key aspects of USTR’s trade policy agenda in 

particular have potential to help SMEs boost exports. These include enhancing trade facilitation work, 

strengthening and enforcing intellectual property rights, simplifying government procurement rules, and 

targeting services barriers that are especially difficult for SMEs, such as requirements for staffing an 

office in each country to which companies wish to export. 

The ability to address SME concerns through the fact-finding and consultation mechanisms built into our 

bilateral and regional trade agreements and dialogues is an important asset for USTR. For example: 

 As we move forward with negotiations to expand U.S. trade in the Asia-Pacific through the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership, we will have a point person for SME issues, and we will consistently 

emphasize the needs of smaller businesses. 

 As an APEC agenda priority, we are seeking to make it cheaper and easier for companies, and 

particularly small and medium-sized businesses, to trade in the region. We will be looking to 

increase activities in APEC that will help SMEs by seeking to rationalize complex and divergent 

trade rules, and reduce transaction costs. 

 We are seeking to establish, where appropriate, free trade agreement (FTA) working groups on 

small and medium-sized enterprises to facilitate expanded SME trade opportunities under our 

FTAs. 

D. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

The United States is working to strengthen cooperation with its trading partners in the fight against 

counterfeiting and piracy. In October 2007, USTR announced an initiative, in partnership with several 

key trading partners, to fight counterfeiting and piracy by seeking to negotiate an Anti-Counterfeiting 

Trade Agreement (ACTA). The ACTA effort brings together a number of countries that are prepared to 

embrace strong intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement in a leadership group to seek a new 

agreement calling for cooperation, strong enforcement practices, and a strong legal framework for IPR 
IV. Other Trade Activities |160 

enforcement. Participants so far have included Australia, Canada, the European Union (with its 27 

Member States), Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and Switzerland. In 2008, 

these participants engaged in four rounds of negotiations. 

Following a review in early 2009, Ambassador Ron Kirk announced on June 12, 2009 that USTR would 

continue to participate in the negotiations. Two negotiating rounds in Rabat, Morocco and Seoul, Korea 

were held in 2009. 

Additionally, during the review, USTR identified additional opportunities for ensuring meaningful input 

and keeping the public informed about the ACTA negotiations. Accordingly, in 2009, USTR took the 

following steps: 

 established for the first time a dedicated ACTA web page on the USTR website; 

 issued and updated the first public summary of issues under negotiation; 

 took the new step of releasing agendas to the public on the ACTA web page before each meeting; 

 broadened the group of experts from which USTR sought advice, including representatives of 

intellectual property rights holders, Internet intermediaries, NGOs, and others, about prospective 

U.S. positions on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment; 

 consulted and shared relevant text with USTR Committees of Jurisdiction and the Judiciary 

Committees in both houses of the U.S. Congress concerning prospective positions; and 

 strengthened educational efforts online with links on the ACTA web page to valuable and 

relevant portions of past agreements, for review by anyone who is interested in understanding the 

U.S. approach to possible legal framework provisions of the ACTA. 

USTR also won an endorsement by ACTA partners at the Seoul Round in November 2009 of the need to 

provide the opportunity for the public to provide meaningful and timely input into the negotiations. This 

lays the groundwork for cooperative transparency efforts in 2010. 

E. Import Safety 

On March 14, 2009, President Obama announced the creation of the Food Safety Working Group to 

advise him on how to strengthen the U.S. food safety system. The Working Group, chaired by the 

Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, brings 

together cabinet secretaries and senior officials to foster coordination throughout the federal government 

on a new, public health focused approach to food safety based on three core principles: (1) prioritizing 

prevention; (2) strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and (3) improving response and recovery. 

USTR has been an active member of the Food Safety Working Group providing guidance on various 

recommendations and initiatives while ensuring compliance with international trade obligations. 

Since its creation, the Food Safety Working Group has served as a mechanism to address cross-cutting 

issues, such as new food safety legislation, pathogen reduction treatments, and facility inspection 

activities. The Food Safety Working Group is currently working on a series of initiatives to make the U.S. 

food supply even safer by further reducing Salmonella in eggs and poultry products and establishing a 

national traceback and response system to quickly identify sources of illness to protect consumers and 

help industry recover faster. 
IV. Other Trade Activities |161 

A predecessor to the Food Safety Working Group was a working group on Import Safety established by 

the Bush Administration. That working group, which included representatives from USTR and focused on 

food as well as other product safety concerns, conducted a comprehensive review of current practices. 

Based on that review and input from stakeholders and relevant federal agencies, the working group issued 

a Strategic Framework followed by an Action Plan that outlined 14 recommendations and 50 action steps 

to improve import safety. The Action Plan, the Strategic Framework, and a subsequent progress report 

can be accessed at http://www.importsafety.gov. 

In addition to active participation in the Food Safety Working Group’s activities and the earlier Import 

Safety Working Group, USTR has continued to address the safety of imported products through its work 

on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues. An integral part of U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) are 

chapters concerning SPS measures. Each SPS chapter has among its stated objectives the protection of 

human and animal health. These chapters, among other things, establish standing committees of the 

parties to the FTA to enhance cooperation and consultation on SPS matters and improve the parties’ 

understanding of each other’s SPS requirements, as well as to identify appropriate areas for capacity 

building and technical assistance in countries such as Peru. 

Work with U.S. trading partners continues outside of FTAs as well. Prior to the December 2007 meeting 

of the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) with China, USTR also contributed to the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services’ efforts to conclude two memoranda of agreement (MOA) with China aimed 

at improving the safety of Chinese products exported to the United States. The MOAs adopted an 

innovative approach to improving the safety of products imported from China, including the use of 

foreign certification. High-level engagement by the United States in the food safety activities of the 

APEC Subcommittee on Standards and Conformance (SCSC) produced agreement on capacity building 

priorities to be addressed in the work of the APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum Partnership (FSCF) 

Training Institute Network (PTIN). The FSCF PTIN is composed of leaders from government, the 

private sector and academia and serves as a network of food safety trainers in the APEC region. In 2010, 

the PTIN plans to develop food safety training modules and delivery mechanisms, hold several food 

safety workshops, and launch a website containing food safety training resources. The APEC SCSC also 

hosted a U.S.-led initiative to promote trade in safe toys in a regulator-to-regulator dialogue in August 

2009 in Singapore and a conference of stakeholders and regulators at the Hong Kong International Toy 

Fair in January 2010. 

The WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committees provide 

an important forum for the United States to exchange information with its trading partners on countries’ 

respective health and safety requirements and address concerns about their implementation. These 

capacity building efforts provide an opportunity for the United States to work with its trading partners to 

ensure that SPS and product safety requirements are based on the best available scientific and technical 

information and in accordance with their health and safety objectives. 

Strong intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement also plays an essential role in the protection of 

public health and safety. In this area, USTR, with the help of other federal agencies, works with U.S. 

trading partners to address product counterfeiting by promoting stronger IPR laws and law enforcement 

around the world, for example through efforts to negotiate an ACTA. (For additional information, see 

Chapter IV.D.) 
IV. Other Trade Activities |162 

F. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

Thirty-one democracies in Europe, North America, South America, and the Pacific Rim comprise the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), established in 1961 and 

headquartered in Paris. The OECD member countries account for 72 percent of world gross national 

income, 60 percent of world trade, 95 percent of world official development assistance, over half of the 

world's energy consumption, and 18 percent of the world's population. The OECD is not just a grouping 

of economically significant nations, but also a policy forum covering a broad spectrum of economic, 

social, and scientific areas, from macroeconomic analysis to education to biotechnology. The OECD 

helps countries, both OECD members and non-members, reap the benefits and confront the challenges of 

a global economy by promoting economic growth, free markets, and efficient use of resources. Each 

substantive area is covered by a committee of member government officials, supported by Secretariat 

staff. The emphasis is on discussion and peer review, rather than negotiation, though some OECD 

instruments are legally binding, such as the Anti-Bribery Convention. Most OECD decisions require 

consensus among member governments. In the past, analysis of issues in the OECD often has been 

instrumental in forging a consensus among OECD countries to pursue specific negotiating goals in other 

international fora, such as the WTO. 

The OECD conducts wide-ranging outreach activities to non-member countries and to business and civil 

society, in particular through its series of workshops and “Global Forum” events held around the world 

each year. Non-members may participate as observers of committees when members believe that 

participation will be mutually beneficial. The OECD carries out a number of regional and bilateral 

cooperation programs, such as the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) initiative. 

The OECD is mainly funded by the member countries. National contributions to the annual budget are 

based on a formula related to the size of each member’s economy. The United States pays just under 25 

percent of the OECD’s costs, but a historic deal was reached in 2008 on OECD finance reform, whereby 

the U.S. agreed to allow two percent annual growth in the OECD budget over the next decade in return 

for the smaller members significantly increasing their share of the OECD’s assessments. This finance 

reform will decrease the U.S. share of contributions from 24.975 percent to around 20 percent over a tenyear period. The overall budget for 2009 was projected to total 303 million euros (approximately $443 

million). 

1. Trade Committee Work Program 

In 2009, the OECD Trade Committee, its subsidiary Working Party, and its joint working groups on 

environment and agriculture, continued to address a number of issues of significance to the multilateral 

trading system. Members asked the Secretariat to focus its analytical resources on four work streams: 

trade liberalization, trade in services, trade and domestic policies, and export credits. The Trade 

Homepage on the OECD website (http://www.oecd.org/trade) contains up-to-date information on 

published analytical work and other trade-related activities. 

Several major OECD analytical pieces related to trade were developed or completed in 2009. These 

include: 

• OECD Economic Outlook No. 86, November 2009; 

• OECD Statistics on International Trade in Services 2009, Volume I, detailed tables by service 

 category; 

 • Aid for Trade at a Glance: Maintaining Momentum 2009; 

 • Assessing Barriers to Trade in Services in the MENA Region; 

 • Binding Constraints to Trade Expansion: Aid for Trade Objectives and Diagnostic Tools; 
IV. Other Trade Activities |163 

 • Clarifying Trade Costs: Maritime Transport and its Effect on Agricultural Trade; 

 • Economic Impacts of the Phase-Out in 2005 of Quantitative Restrictions Under The 

 Agreement on Textiles and Clothing; 

• Globalization and Emerging Economies: Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South 

 Africa; 

 • India’s Trade Integration, Realizing the Potential; 

 • Informal Cross-Border Trade and Trade Facilitation Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa;

 • International Trade: Free, Fair and Open?; 

 • Overcoming Border Bottlenecks: The Costs and Benefits of Trade Facilitation; 

 • Price and Volume Elasticities of Brazilian Foreign Trade: A Profit Function Approach; 

 • Quantifying Regulatory Barriers to Services Trade; 

 • Role, Usage and Motivation for Contracting in Agriculture; 

 • South Africa's Trade and Growth; 

 • Trading Out of Poverty - How Aid for Trade Can Help; 

 • Trade Impacts of Selected Regional Trade Agreements in Agriculture; and 

• Vertical Trade, Trade Costs and FDI. 

The Trade Committee continued its work developing the first Services Trade Restrictiveness Index, a tool 

to measure the restrictiveness of regulations and other barriers affecting trade in services. During the 

year, the OECD collected data and examined barriers to trade in four sectors: computer services, 

professional services, telecommunications, and construction services. 

A Global Forum on Trade and Climate Change in June 2009 in Paris provided an opportunity to present 

the results of analytical work prepared in the Joint Working Party on Trade and the Environment, as well 

as studies by the World Bank on trade and climate change. Its overall goal was to provide an opportunity 

for experts and policymakers to examine how trade policy and climate change policy can be mutually 

supportive, in concrete terms. 

The Trade Committee, through its working party, and the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee 

(DAC) are jointly helping to respond to the challenge of helping poorer developing countries benefit from 

the opportunities of the multilateral trading system. As part of the WTO Aid for Trade initiative, the 

OECD has been asked to track trade-related aid flows and assist in the effort to evaluate the effectiveness 

of these programs, both areas in which the DAC has particular expertise. The aim of the OECD’s Aid for 

Trade work is to make aid for trade more effective by strengthening the integration of trade in 

development programs, developing impartial and reliable tools to assess aid-for-trade programs, and 

fostering dialogue and knowledge-sharing between stakeholders. Joint Trade Committee-DAC work 

contributed significantly to the WTO’s Second Global Review of Aid for Trade (discussed in the WTO 

section of this report.) 

In addition, the Trade Committee continued its dialogue with civil society and discussed aspects of its 

work and issues of concern with representatives of civil society, including members of the OECD’s 

Business and Industry Advisory Council and Trade Union Advisory Council. 

2. Dialogue with Non-OECD Members 

The OECD continued its contacts with non-member countries to encourage the integration into the 

multilateral trade regime of developing and transition economies. Since 2007, the OECD has focused 

outreach on broadening membership to include five additional countries: Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia, 

and Slovenia; and to enhance engagement with five important emerging economies: Brazil, China, India, 

Indonesia, and South Africa. 
IV. Other Trade Activities |164 

Chile completed its accession process in 2009 and became the 31st member of the OECD in January 2010. 

It is the first South American country to accede to the Organization. Estonia, Israel, and Slovenia are 

expected to complete the processes for their accessions sometime in 2010. Russia is in the early stages of 

accession. Enhanced Engagement is a commitment by the OECD to work closely with these important 

non-members in areas of mutual benefit. Enhanced Engagement may include elements of the following: 

committee participation, economic surveys, adherence to instruments, integration into the statistical 

reporting and information systems, sector-specific peer reviews, and other actions. 

In 2009, the Trade Committee and its Working Party continued outreach to accession candidates and 

enhanced engagement partners and other interested non-members, encouraging non-member economies 

to be observers on an ad hoc basis when their participation could both benefit from, and contribute to, the 

Trade Committee’s work. 

3. Other OECD Work Related to Trade 

Representatives of the OECD member countries meet in specialized committees to advance ideas and 

review progress in specific policy areas, such as economics, trade, science, employment, education, or 

financial markets. There are about 200 committees, working groups, and expert groups. Additional 

information on OECD activities and publications related to trade can be found on the following OECD 

websites: 

• Trade: http://www.oecd.org/trade 

• Trade and development: http://www.oecd.org/trade/dev 

• Trade and environment: http://www.oecd.org/trade/env 

• Trade facilitation: http://www.oecd.org/trade/facilitation 

• Agricultural trade: http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/trade 

• Services trade: http://www.oecd.org/trade/services 

• Anti-Bribery Convention: http://www.oecd.org/corruption 

• Export credits: http://www.oecd.org/trade/xcred 

• Employment, Labor and Social Affairs: http://www.oecd.org/els 

• Fisheries: http://www.oecd.org/fisheries 

• Regulatory Reform: http://www.oecd.org/regreform 

• Steel: http://www.oecd.org/sti/steel 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|165 

V. TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 

A. Enforcing U.S. Trade Agreements 

1. Overview 

USTR coordinates the Administration’s active monitoring of foreign government compliance with trade 

agreements to which the United States is a party and pursues enforcement actions, using dispute 

settlement procedures and applying the full range of U.S. trade laws when necessary. Vigorous 

investigation efforts by relevant agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and 

State, help ensure that these agreements yield the maximum benefits in terms of ensuring market access 

for Americans, advancing the rule of law internationally, and creating a fair, open, and predictable trading 

environment. Ensuring full implementation of U.S. trade agreements is one of the Administration’s 

strategic priorities. We seek to achieve this goal through a variety of means, including: 

 Asserting U.S. rights through the World Trade Organization (WTO), including the 

stronger dispute settlement mechanism created in the Uruguay Round, and the WTO 

bodies and committees charged with monitoring implementation and with surveillance of 

agreements and disciplines; 

 Vigorously monitoring and enforcing bilateral agreements; 

 Invoking U.S. trade laws in conjunction with bilateral and WTO mechanisms to promote 

compliance; 

 Providing technical assistance to trading partners, especially in developing countries, to 

ensure that key agreements such as the Agreement on Basic Telecommunications and the 

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) are 

implemented on schedule; and 

 Promoting U.S. interests under free trade agreements (FTAs) through work programs, 

accelerated tariff reductions, and use or threat of use of dispute settlement mechanisms, 

including with respect to labor and environment. 

Through the vigorous application of U.S. trade laws and active use of WTO dispute settlement 

procedures, the United States has effectively opened foreign markets to U.S. goods and services. The 

United States also has used the incentive of preferential access to the U.S. market to encourage 

improvements in workers’ rights and reform of intellectual property laws and practices in other countries. 

These enforcement efforts have resulted in major benefits for U.S. firms, farmers, and workers. 

To ensure the enforcement of WTO agreements, the United States has been one of the world’s most 

frequent users of WTO dispute settlement procedures. Since the establishment of the WTO in 1994, the 

United States has filed 82 complaints at the WTO, thus far successfully concluding 55 of them by settling 

27 cases favorably and prevailing in 28 others through litigation before WTO panels and the Appellate 

Body. The United States has obtained favorable settlements and favorable rulings in virtually all sectors, 

including manufacturing, intellectual property, agriculture, and services. These cases cover a number of 

WTO agreements – involving rules on trade in goods, trade in services, and intellectual property 

protection – and affect a wide range of sectors of the U.S. economy. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 166 

a. Satisfactory settlements 

The goal in filing cases is to secure benefits for U.S. stakeholders rather than to engage in prolonged 

litigation. Therefore, whenever possible the United States has sought to reach favorable settlements that 

eliminate the foreign breach without having to resort to panel proceedings. 

The United States has been able to achieve this preferred result in 28 cases concluded so far, involving: 

Argentina’s protection and enforcement of patents; Australia’s ban on salmon imports; Belgium’s duties 

on rice imports; Brazil’s automotive investment measures; Brazil’s patent law; Canada’s antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigation on corn; China’s value added tax; China’s prohibited subsidies; China’s 

treatment of foreign financial information suppliers; China’s government support tied to promotion of 

Chinese brand names abroad; Denmark’s civil procedures for intellectual property enforcement; Egypt’s 

apparel tariffs; the EU’s market access for grains; an EU import surcharge on corn gluten feed; Greece’s 

protection of copyrighted motion pictures and television programs; Hungary’s agricultural export 

subsidies; Ireland’s protection of copyrights; Japan’s protection of sound recordings; Korea’s shelf-life 

standards for beef and pork; Mexico’s restrictions on hog imports; Pakistan’s protection of patents; the 

Philippines’ market access for pork and poultry; the Philippines’ auto regime; Portugal’s protection of 

patents; Romania’s customs valuation regime; Sweden’s enforcement of intellectual property rights; and 

Turkey’s box office taxes on motion pictures. 

b. Litigation successes

When U.S. trading partners have not been willing to negotiate settlements, the United States has pursued 

its cases to conclusion, prevailing in 27 cases to date, involving: Argentina’s tax and duties on textiles, 

apparel, and footwear; Australia’s export subsidies on automotive leather; Canada’s barriers to the sale 

and distribution of magazines; Canada’s export subsidies and an import barrier on dairy products; 

Canada’s law protecting patents; China’s charges on imported automobile parts; China’s measures 

restricting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment 

products; China’s enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights, the EU’s import barriers on 

bananas; the EU’s ban on imports of beef; the EU’s regime for protecting geographical indications; the 

EU’s moratorium on biotechnology products; the EU’s non-uniform classification of LCD monitors; 

India’s import bans and other restrictions on 2,700 items; India’s protection of patents on pharmaceuticals 

and agricultural chemicals; India’s and Indonesia’s discriminatory measures on imports of U.S. 

automobiles; India’s additional and extra-additional duties on alcoholic beverages and other products; 

Japan’s restrictions affecting imports of apples, cherries, and other fruits; Japan’s barriers to apple 

imports; Japan’s and Korea’s discriminatory taxes on distilled spirits; Korea’s restrictions on beef 

imports; Mexico’s antidumping duties on high fructose corn syrup; Mexico’s telecommunications 

barriers; Mexico’s antidumping duties on rice; Mexico’s discriminatory soft drink tax; and Turkey’s 

measures affecting the importation of rice.

USTR also works in consultation with other government agencies to ensure the most effective use of U.S. 

trade laws to complement its litigation strategy and to address problems that are outside the scope of the 

WTO and U.S. free trade agreements. USTR has effectively applied Section 301 of the Trade Act of 

1974 to address unfair foreign government measures, “Special 301” for intellectual property rights 

protection and enforcement, and Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 for 

telecommunications trade problems. The application of these trade law tools is described further below. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|167 

2. WTO Dispute Settlement 

U.S. enforcement successes in 2009 include rulings against China’s measures affecting trading rights and 

distribution services for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment products and against China’s 

measures affecting the enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights. 

The United States also favorably resolved disputes after completing, initiating, or threatening to initiate 

WTO dispute settlement procedures. For example, the United States had previously initiated a dispute 

concerning China’s government support tied to China’s industrial policy to promote the sale of Chinese 

brand names and other products abroad. In December 2009, the United States and China concluded a 

settlement agreement in which China confirmed that it had eliminated all of the export-contingent benefits 

in the challenged measures. Similarly, the United States had previously obtained WTO rulings 

concerning certain Chinese discriminatory internal charges and administrative procedures on imported 

automobile parts. The United States and China subsequently agreed that the reasonable period of time for 

China to implement the WTO rulings would expire on September 1, 2009. Shortly before the expiration 

of the reasonable period of time, China informed the United States that it had withdrawn the measures in 

dispute. 

Ongoing enforcement actions include disputes involving the EU’s aircraft subsidies, the EU’s tariff 

treatment for certain information technology products, the EU’s ban on the importation and marketing of 

U.S. poultry, and China’s export quotas and export tariffs on various raw materials. 

The cases described in Chapter II of this report further demonstrate the importance of the WTO dispute 

settlement process in opening foreign markets and securing other countries’ compliance with their WTO 

obligations. Further information on WTO disputes to which the United States is a party is available on 

the USTR website: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/enforcement/overview-dispute-settlement-matters. 

3. Other Monitoring and Enforcement Activities 

a. Subsidies Enforcement 

The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (Subsidies Agreement) establishes 

multilateral disciplines on subsidies. Among its various disciplines, the Subsidies Agreement provides 

remedies for subsidies that have adverse effects not only in the importing country’s market, but also in the 

subsidizing government’s market and in third-country markets. Prior to the Subsidies Agreement coming 

into effect in 1995, the U.S. countervailing duty law was the only practical mechanism for U.S. 

companies to address subsidized foreign competition. However, the countervailing duty law focuses 

exclusively on the effects of foreign subsidized competition in the United States. Although the 

procedures and remedies are different, the multilateral remedies of the Subsidies Agreement provide an 

alternative tool to address foreign subsidies that affect U.S. businesses in an increasingly global market 

place. 

Section 281 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (URAA) sets out the responsibilities of 

USTR and the Department of Commerce (Commerce) in enforcing U.S. rights in the WTO under the 

Subsidies Agreement. USTR coordinates the development and implementation of overall U.S. trade 

policy with respect to subsidy matters; represents the United States in the WTO, including the WTO 

Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures; and leads the interagency team on matters of 

policy. The role of Commerce’s Import Administration (IA) is to enforce the countervailing duty law 

and, in accordance with responsibilities assigned by the Congress in the URAA, to spearhead the 

subsidies enforcement activities of the United States with respect to the disciplines embodied in the 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 168 

Subsidies Agreement. The IA’s Subsidies Enforcement Office (SEO) is the specific office charged with 

carrying out these duties. 

The primary mandate of the SEO is to examine subsidy complaints and concerns raised by U.S. exporting 

companies and to monitor foreign subsidy practices to determine whether there is reason to believe they 

are impeding U.S. exports to foreign markets and are inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement. Once 

sufficient information about a subsidy practice has been gathered to permit it to be reliably evaluated, 

USTR and Commerce confer with an interagency team to determine the most effective way to proceed. It 

is frequently advantageous to pursue resolution of these problems through a combination of informal and 

formal contacts, including, where warranted, dispute settlement action in the WTO. Remedies for 

violations of the Subsidies Agreement may, under certain circumstances, involve the withdrawal of a 

subsidy program or the elimination of the adverse effects of the program. 

During this past year USTR and IA staff have handled numerous inquiries and met with representatives of 

U.S. industries concerned with the subsidization of foreign competitors. These efforts continue to be 

importantly enhanced by IA officers stationed overseas (e.g., in China), who help gather, clarify, and 

check the accuracy of information concerning foreign subsidy practices. State Department officials at 

posts where IA staff are not present have also handled such inquiries. 

The SEO’s electronic subsidies database continues to fulfill the goal of providing the U.S. trading 

community with a centralized location to obtain information about the remedies available under the 

Subsidies Agreement and much of the information that is needed to develop a countervailing duty case or 

a WTO subsidies complaint. The website (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/eselframes.html) includes foreign 

governments’ subsidies notifications made to the WTO, an overview of the SEO, information on U.S. 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) proceedings as well as AD/CVD actions with respect 

to U.S. exports, helpful links, and an easily navigable tool that provides information about each subsidy 

program investigated by Commerce in CVD cases since 1980. This database is frequently updated, 

making information on subsidy programs quickly available to the public. During 2009, IA invested in 

new software for the Electronic Subsidies Enforcement Library (ESEL), significantly improving the user 

interface and search functions, in particular for subsidy programs investigated by Commerce in its CVD 

proceedings. 

b. Monitoring Foreign Antidumping, Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Actions 

The WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI (Antidumping Agreement) and the WTO 

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (Subsidies Agreement) permit WTO Members to 

impose antidumping or countervailing duties to offset injurious dumping or subsidization of products 

exported from one Member to another. The United States actively participates in ongoing AD and CVD 

cases conducted by foreign countries in order to safeguard the interests of U.S. industry and to ensure that 

Members abide by their WTO obligations in conducting such proceedings. The United States also closely 

monitors antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings initiated against U.S. exporters to ensure that 

foreign antidumping and countervailing duty actions are administered fairly and in full compliance with 

WTO rules. 

To this end, the United States works closely with U.S. companies affected by foreign countries’ AD and 

CVD investigations in an effort to help them better understand Members’ AD and CVD systems. The 

United States also advocates on their behalf in connection with ongoing investigations, with the goal of 

obtaining fair and objective treatment for them consistent with the WTO Agreements. In addition, with 

regard to CVD cases, the United States provides extensive information in response to questions from 

foreign governments regarding the subsidy allegations at issue in a particular case. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|169 

Further, IA tracks foreign antidumping and countervailing duty actions, as well as safeguard actions 

involving U.S. exporters, enabling U.S. companies and U.S. Government agencies to monitor other 

Members’ administration of such actions involving U.S. companies. Information about foreign trade 

remedy actions affecting U.S. exports is accessible to the public via IA’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/trcs/index.html. The stationing of IA officers to certain overseas locations and close 

contacts with U.S. government officers stationed in embassies worldwide has contributed to the 

Administration’s efforts to monitor the application of foreign trade remedy laws with respect to U.S. 

exports. 

During the past year, several trade remedy proceedings involving exports from the United States were 

closely monitored, such as: Brazil’s investigation of butyl acrylate; Canada’s investigations of copper 

pipe fittings and polyiso insulation board; China’s investigations of automobiles, chicken products, grainoriented electrical steel, adipic acid and polyamides; the European Union’s investigation of biodiesel; 

India’s investigations of coated paper, cold rolled stainless steel, hot rolled coil, oxo alcohols and 

polypropylene; Mexico’s reinvestigation of apples; Pakistan’s investigations of hot rolled coil and 

tinplate; South Africa’s investigations of frozen chicken and polyvinyl chloride; and Ukraine’s 

investigation of chicken products . IA personnel have also participated in technical exchanges with the 

administering authorities of the European Union, Indonesia, Thailand, and Ukraine to obtain a better 

understanding of these countries’ administration of trade remedy laws and compliance with WTO 

obligations. 

Members must notify on an ongoing basis and without delay their preliminary and final determinations to 

the WTO. Twice a year, WTO Members must also notify the WTO of all antidumping and countervailing 

duty actions they have taken during the preceding six-month period. The actions are identified in semiannual reports submitted for discussion in meetings of the relevant WTO committees. Finally, Members 

are required to notify the WTO of changes in their antidumping and countervailing duty laws and 

regulations. These notifications are accessible through the USTR and IA website links to the WTO’s 

website. 

4. Initiatives to Address Foreign Standards and SPS Barriers 

In July 2009, Ambassador Ron Kirk announced on behalf of the Obama Administration its intention to 

make enforcement of trade agreements a centerpiece of U.S. trade policy. Specifically, the 

Administration will deploy resources more effectively to identify and confront unnecessary or unjustified 

barriers stemming from sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures as well as technical regulations, 

standards, and conformity assessment procedures (standards-related measures) that restrict U.S. exports of 

safe, high quality products. SPS measures, technical regulations and standards serve a vital role in 

safeguarding countries and their people, including protecting health, safety, and the environment. 

Conformity assessment procedures are normal, legitimate day-to-day activities that contribute, inter alia,

to increasing confidence between trading partners by ensuring that products traded internationally comply 

with underlying standards and technical requirements. However, it is important that SPS and standardsrelated measures not act as disguised or unwarranted restrictions on market access or discriminate against 

U.S. exports. For this reason, U.S. trade agreements provide that, although countries may adopt SPS and 

standards-related measures to meet legitimate objectives such as the protection of health and safety as 

well as the environment, the measures they adopt in pursuit of such objectives must not act as 

unnecessary obstacles to trade. Stepped up monitoring of trading partners’ practices and increased 

engagement with them can help ensure that U.S. trading partners are complying with their obligations and 

can help facilitate trade in safe, high quality U.S. products. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 170 

As part of this intensified effort to identify such barriers, in October 2009 USTR published a Federal 

Register Notice requesting producers, growers, industry, and other members of the public to submit views 

on SPS and standards-related measures that act as significant barriers to U.S. exports. The Notice 

explained that such views would assist the U.S. Government in preparing two new reports focusing on 

SPS measures and standards-related measures that act as significant barriers to U.S. exports. Early in 

2010, USTR will publish these reports, which will serve as tools to bring greater attention and focus to 

addressing SPS and standards-related measures that may be inconsistent with international trade 

agreements to which the United States is a party or that otherwise act as significant barriers to U.S. 

exports. These new reports will be based on assessments from other government agencies, including from 

commercial, agricultural, and foreign service officers stationed abroad, and will be based as well on 

submissions from industry and other interested stakeholders. 

These reports will also document the actions that the United States has taken to resolve the specific trade 

concerns identified through these efforts, as well as ongoing processes for monitoring SPS and standardsrelated actions that affect trade. USTR’s activities in the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures and the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) are at the forefront of these 

efforts. (For additional information, see Chapter II.F.3 and Chapter II.F.8.) USTR also engages on these 

issues through, inter alia, mechanisms established by free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, and through 

other regional and multilateral organizations, such as APEC and the OECD. 

B. U.S. Trade Laws 

1. Section 301 

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Trade Act), is designed to address foreign unfair 

practices affecting U.S. exports of goods or services. Section 301 may be used to enforce U.S. rights 

under bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and also may be used to respond to unreasonable, 

unjustifiable, or discriminatory foreign government practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. For 

example, Section 301 may be used to obtain increased market access for U.S. goods and services, to 

provide more equitable conditions for U.S. investment abroad, and to obtain more effective protection 

worldwide for U.S. intellectual property.

a. Operation of the Statute 

The Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act provide a domestic procedure whereby interested persons 

may petition the USTR to investigate a foreign government act, policy, or practice that may be burdening 

or restricting U.S. commerce and take appropriate action. The USTR also may self-initiate an 

investigation. 

In each investigation, the USTR must seek consultations with the foreign government whose acts, 

policies, or practices are under investigation. If the consultations do not result in a settlement and the 

investigation involves a trade agreement, Section 303 of the Trade Act requires the USTR to use the 

dispute settlement procedures that are available under that agreement. Section 304 of the Trade Act 

requires the USTR to determine whether the acts, policies, or practices in question deny U.S. rights under 

a trade agreement or whether they are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and burden or restrict 

U.S. commerce. If the acts, policies, or practices are determined to violate a trade agreement or to be 

unjustifiable, the USTR must take action. If they are determined to be unreasonable or discriminatory and 

to burden or restrict U.S. commerce, the USTR must determine whether action is appropriate and, if so, 

what action to take. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|171 

Actions that the USTR may take under Section 301 include to: (1) suspend trade agreement concessions; 

(2) impose duties or other import restrictions; (3) impose fees or restrictions on services; (4) enter into 

agreements with the subject country to eliminate the offending practice or to provide compensatory 

benefits for the United States; and/or (5) restrict service sector authorizations. 

After a Section 301 investigation is concluded, the USTR is required to monitor a foreign country’s 

implementation of any agreements entered into, or measures undertaken, to resolve a matter that was the 

subject of the investigation. If the foreign country fails to comply with an agreement or the USTR 

considers that the country fails to implement a WTO dispute panel recommendation, the USTR must 

determine what further action to take under Section 301. 

b. Developments during 2009 

During 2009, USTR received one petition requesting the initiation of an investigation, and USTR selfinitiated one investigation, which is described in part c. below. In addition, there were developments 

relating to the Section 301 investigation described in part d. below. 

In May 2009, a petition was filed alleging, among other things, that acts, policies and practices of the 

government of Israel were inconsistent with the obligations of Israel under the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The USTR decided not to initiate an investigation in 

response to the petition on several grounds, including that the issues raised in the petition would be 

addressed more effectively through the established Special 301 process. 

c. Canada – Compliance with Softwood Lumber Agreement 

Under the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA), Canada agreed to impose export measures on 

Canadian exports of softwood lumber products to the United States. At the request of the United States, 

an arbitral tribunal established under the SLA found that Canada had not complied with certain SLA 

obligations, and in February 2009 the tribunal issued an award concerning the remedy to be applied. 

In April 2009, the USTR: (1) initiated a Section 301 investigation of Canada’s compliance with the SLA; 

(2) determined in the investigation that Canada is denying U.S. rights under the SLA; (3) found that 

expeditious action was required to enforce U.S. rights under the SLA; and (4) determined that appropriate 

action under Section 301 was to impose 10 percent ad valorem duties on imports of softwood lumber 

products from the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Under the determination, 

the duties are to remain in place until such time as the United States has collected $54.8 million, which is 

the amount determined by the arbitral tribunal. 

d. European Commission - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) 

A European Commission (EC) directive prohibits the import into the European Union of animals and 

meat from animals to which certain hormones have been administered (the “hormone ban”). This 

measure has the effect of banning nearly all imports of beef and beef products from the United States. A 

WTO panel and the Appellate Body found that the hormone ban was inconsistent with the EC’s WTO 

obligations because the ban was not based on scientific evidence, a risk assessment, or relevant 

international standards. Under WTO procedures, the EC was to have come into compliance with its 

obligations by May 13, 1999, but failed to do so. Accordingly, in May 1999 the United States requested 

authorization from the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to suspend the application to the EC, and Member 

States thereof, of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT. The EC did not contest that 

it had failed to comply with its WTO obligations, but objected to the level of suspension proposed by the 

United States. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 172 

On July 12, 1999, WTO arbitrators determined that the level of nullification or impairment suffered by 

the United States as a result of the EC’s WTO-inconsistent hormone ban was $116.8 million per year. 

Accordingly, on July 26, 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend the application to the EC 

and its Member States of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT covering trade up to 

$116.8 million per year. In a Federal Register Notice published in July 1999, the USTR announced that 

the United States was exercising this authorization by using authority under Section 301 to impose 100 

percent ad valorem duties on a list of certain products (the “retaliation list”) of certain EC Member States. 

In February 2005, a WTO panel was established to consider the EC’s claims that it had brought its 

hormone ban into compliance with the EC’s WTO obligations and that the increased duties imposed by 

the United States were no longer covered by the DSB authorization. The WTO panel concluded its work 

in 2008, and the panel report was appealed to the WTO Appellate Body. In October 2008, the Appellate 

Body confirmed that the July 1999 DSB authorization to the United States to suspend the application of 

tariff concessions and related obligations remains in effect. 

Section 307(c) of the Trade Act provides for USTR to conduct a review of a section 301 action four years 

after the action was taken. During 2008, the U.S. Court of International Trade held that USTR must also 

conduct a section 307(c) review eight years after the action was taken. Accordingly, USTR proceeded to 

conduct such a review. 

In January 2009, USTR announced the results of the Section 307(c) review. The USTR decided to 

modify the action taken in July 1999 by: (1) removing some products from the list of products subject to 

100 percent ad valorem duties since July 1999; (2) imposing 100 percent ad valorem duties on some new 

products from certain EC member States; (3) modifying the coverage with respect to particular EC 

member States; and (4) raising the level of duties on one of the products that was being maintained on the 

product list. The trade value of the products subject to the modified action continued not to exceed the 

$116.8 million per year level authorized by the WTO in July 1999. The effective date of the 

modifications was to be March 23, 2009. 

In March 2009, the USTR decided to delay the effective date of the additional duties (items 2 through 4 

above) imposed under the January 2009 modifications in order to allow additional time for reaching an 

agreement with the EC that would provide benefits to the U.S. beef industry. The effective date of the 

removal of duties under the January modifications remained March 23, 2009. Accordingly, subsequent to 

March 23, 2009, the additional duties put in place in July 1999 remained in place on a reduced list of 

products. 

In May 2009, the United States and the EC announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) in the EC-Beef Hormones dispute. Under the first phase of the MOU, the EC is obligated to open 

a new beef tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for beef not produced with certain growth-promoting hormones in the 

amount of 20,000 metric tons at zero rate of duty. The United States in turn is obligated not to increase 

additional duties above those in effect as of March 23, 2009. 

In August 2009, the EC opened the new beef TRQ, and USTR published a notice seeking comments on 

the actions necessary to implement U.S. obligations under the first phase of the MOU and to pursue 

additional market access under subsequent phases of the MOU. The notice in particular sought comments 

on the continued imposition of 100 percent ad valorem duties throughout the remainder of the first phase 

of the MOU on the reduced list of products subject to such duties since March 23, 2009. 

In September 2009, after consideration of the comments received in response to the August notice, the 

USTR took action under Section 301 necessary to implement U.S. obligations under the first phase of the 

MOU and to pursue additional market access under subsequent phases of the MOU. In particular, the 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|173 

USTR terminated the additional duties that were announced in January 2009, but which had been delayed 

up to that time and had never entered into force. The USTR’s action left in place the additional duties 

that have been in effect since March 23, 2009 on a reduced list of products. 

The first phase of the MOU concludes on August 3, 2012. Under a possible second phase of the MOU, 

the EC would expand the beef TRQ to 45,000 metric tons, and the United States would suspend all of the 

additional duties imposed in connection with the EC-Beef Hormones dispute. 

2. Special 301 

Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994), USTR must 

identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights (IPR) 

or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection. 

Countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or 

practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant U.S. products are designated as 

“Priority Foreign Countries” unless those countries are entering into good faith negotiations, or are 

making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective 

protection of IPR. Priority Foreign Countries are subject to an investigation under the Section 301 

provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, unless USTR determines that the investigation would be detrimental 

to U.S. economic interests. 

In addition, USTR has created a Special 301 “Priority Watch List” and “Watch List.” Placement of a 

trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that 

country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual 

property. Countries placed on the Priority Watch List receive increased attention in bilateral discussions 

with the United States concerning problem areas. 

Additionally, under Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, USTR monitors whether U.S. trading partners 

are in compliance with bilateral intellectual property agreements with the United States that are the basis 

for resolving investigations under Section 301. USTR may apply sanctions if a country fails to 

satisfactorily implement such an agreement. 

The Special 301 list not only indicates those trading partners whose intellectual property protection and 

enforcement regimes most concern the United States, but also alerts firms considering trade or investment 

relationships with such countries that their intellectual property rights may not be adequately protected. 

a. 2009 Special 301 Review Announcements 

On April 30, 2009, the United States announced the results of the 2009 Special 301 annual review, which 

examined in detail the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection in 77 countries. 

USTR placed 46 countries on the Priority Watch List, Watch List, or the Section 306 monitoring list. 

China remained a top IPR enforcement priority in 2009 and was placed again on the Priority Watch List. 

USTR continued to press China to improve IPR enforcement, noting that levels of copyright piracy and 

trademark counterfeiting in China remained unacceptable. Russia’s IPR protection and enforcement 

regime also continued to raise serious concerns, and likewise, Russia remained on the Priority Watch List. 

In particular, the Special 301 report noted that Russia still needed to make further progress towards 

implementing the November 2006 United States-Russia Bilateral Market Access Agreement on 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 174 

Intellectual Property Rights (the IPR Bilateral Agreement) by addressing IPR protection and enforcement 

concerns. 

 In addition to China and Russia, ten countries were placed on the Priority Watch List in 2009: Algeria, 

Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela. 

Thirty-two trading partners were placed on the lower level Watch List. The Watch List countries were: 

Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, 

Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, 

Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, 

Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Paraguay remains under Section 306 monitoring. 

Due to progress on intellectual property rights protection, Korea was removed from the Watch List in 

2009. Canada, Algeria, and Indonesia were elevated from the Watch List to the Priority Watch List in 

2009. 

The 2009 Special 301 report also announced Out-of-Cycle Reviews for Fiji, Israel, the Philippines, 

Poland, and Saudi Arabia. Out-of-Cycle Reviews are conducted for countries that warrant further review 

before the next Special 301 report and may result in changes to a country’s status on the list. 

b. Reorganization of the Special 301 Report 

USTR reorganized the 2009 Special 301 Report, which now has three main sections and two Annexes, in 

order to provide increased clarity and cohesion. 

 Section I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Enforcement

discusses broad global trends and issues in IPR protection and enforcement that USTR works to 

address on a daily basis. 

 Section II: Country Reports includes narrative descriptions of issues of concern in particular 

countries. 

 Section III: Notorious Markets listed in the Special 301 report are examples of marketplaces, 

including those on the Internet, that have been the subject of IPR enforcement actions, or may 

merit further investigation by the relevant authorities for possible IPR infringement, or both. We 

identify these notorious markets based upon information reviewed during the Special 301 

process. Global piracy and counterfeiting continue to thrive due in part to marketplaces like these 

that are “notorious” for dealing in infringing goods. 

 Annex I provides the statutory background for the Special 301 Report. 

 Annex II provides a list of contracting parties to the World Intellectual Property Organization 

(WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) 

(i.e., the WIPO Internet Treaties). 

3. Section 1377 Review of Telecommunications Agreements 

Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires USTR to review by March 

31 of each year the operation and effectiveness of U.S. telecommunications trade agreements. The 

purpose of the review is to determine whether any act, policy, or practice of a foreign country that has 

entered into a telecommunications-related agreement with the United States: (1) is not in compliance with 

the terms of the agreement; or (2) otherwise denies, within the context of the agreement, to 

telecommunications products and services of U.S. firms, mutually advantageous market opportunities in 

that country. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|175 

The 2009 Section 1377 Review focused on a range of concerns, including: (1) access to incumbents’ 

network in Australia, Colombia, Germany, India, Mexico, Singapore and Sweden; (2) high rates or 

surcharges for calls into El Salvador, Jamaica, Japan, Peru and Tonga; (3) lack of regulatory transparency 

in China, Egypt, Germany, India, Israel, Mexico and South Africa; and (4) impediments to trade in 

telecommunications equipment in Brazil, China, India, Israel, Mexico, South Korea, and Thailand. 

The review also marked progress with Oman, where negotiations prior to entry into force of the United 

States-Oman Free Trade Agreement secured the elimination of unreasonably high licensing fees, a key 

barrier to access to the Omani market 

4. Antidumping Actions 

Under the antidumping law, duties are imposed on imported merchandise when the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) determines that the merchandise is being dumped (sold at “less than fair value”) 

and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) determines that there is material injury or threat of 

material injury to the domestic industry, or material retardation of the establishment of an industry, “by 

reason of” those imports. The antidumping law’s provisions are incorporated in Title VII of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 and have been substantially amended by the l979, 1984, and 1988 trade acts as well as by the 

1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. 

An antidumping investigation usually starts when a U.S. industry, or an entity filing on its behalf, submits 

a petition alleging, with respect to certain imports, the dumping and injury elements described above. If 

the petition meets the applicable requirements, Commerce initiates an antidumping investigation. In 

special circumstances, Commerce also may initiate an investigation on its own motion. 

After initiation, the USITC decides, generally within 45 days of the filing of the petition, whether there is 

a “reasonable indication” of material injury or threat of material injury to a domestic industry, or material 

retardation of an industry’s establishment, “by reason of” the allegedly dumped imports. If this 

preliminary injury determination by the USITC is negative, the investigation is terminated and no duties 

are imposed; if it is affirmative, Commerce will make preliminary and final determinations concerning 

the allegedly dumped sales into the U.S. market. If Commerce’s preliminary determination is affirmative, 

Commerce will direct U.S. Customs to suspend liquidation of entries and require importers to post a bond 

or cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin. 

If Commerce’s final determination regarding dumping is negative, the investigation is terminated and no 

duties are imposed. If affirmative, the USITC makes a final injury determination. If the USITC 

determines that there is material injury or threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry’s 

establishment, by reason of the dumped imports, an antidumping order is issued. If the USITC’s final 

injury determination is negative, the investigation is terminated and the cash deposits are refunded or the 

bonds posted are released. 

Upon request of an interested party, Commerce conducts annual reviews of dumping margins pursuant to 

Section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Section 751 also provides for Commerce and USITC review in 

cases of changed circumstances and periodic review in conformity with the five-year “sunset” provisions 

of the U.S. antidumping law and the WTO Antidumping Agreement. 

Most antidumping determinations may be appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, with further 

judicial review possible in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For certain investigations 

involving Canadian or Mexican merchandise, appeals may be made to a binational panel established 

under the NAFTA. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 176 

The United States initiated 20 antidumping investigations in 2009 and imposed 15 antidumping orders. 

5. Countervailing Duty Actions 

The U.S. countervailing duty (CVD) law dates back to late 19th century legislation authorizing the 

imposition of CVDs on subsidized sugar imports. The current CVD provisions are contained in Title VII 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by subsequent legislation, including the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act. As with the antidumping law, the USITC and Commerce jointly administer the CVD 

law. 

The CVD law’s purpose is to offset certain foreign government subsidies that benefit imports into the 

United States. CVD procedures under Title VII are very similar to antidumping procedures, and CVD 

determinations by Commerce and the USITC are subject to the same system of judicial review as are 

antidumping determinations. Commerce normally initiates investigations based upon a petition submitted 

by a U.S. industry or an entity filing on its behalf. The USITC is responsible for investigating material 

injury issues. The USITC makes a preliminary finding as to whether there is a reasonable indication of 

material injury or threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry’s establishment, by 

reason of the imports subject to investigation. If the USITC’s preliminary determination is negative, the 

investigation terminates; otherwise, Commerce issues preliminary and final determinations on 

subsidization. If Commerce’s final determination of subsidization is affirmative, the USITC proceeds 

with its final injury determination. If the USITC’s final determination is affirmative, Commerce will 

issue a CVD order. 

The United States initiated 14 CVD investigations and imposed 6 CVD orders in 2009 

6. Other Import Practices 

a. Section 337 

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, makes it unlawful to engage in unfair acts or unfair 

methods of competition in the importation of goods or sale of imported goods. Most Section 337 

investigations concern alleged infringement of intellectual property rights, such as U.S. patents and 

trademarks. 

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC or Commission) conducts Section 337 

investigations through adjudicatory proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act. The 

proceedings normally involve an evidentiary hearing before a USITC administrative law judge who issues 

an Initial Determination that is subject to review by the Commission. If the USITC finds a violation, it 

can order that imported infringing goods be excluded from the United States and/or issue cease and desist 

orders requiring firms to stop unlawful conduct in the United States, such as the sale or other distribution 

of imported goods in the United States. A limited exclusion order covers only certain imports from 

particular named sources, namely parties who are respondents in the proceeding. A general exclusion 

order, on the other hand, covers certain products from all sources. Cease and desist orders are generally 

directed to entities maintaining inventories of infringing goods in the United States. Many Section 337 

investigations are terminated after the parties reach settlement agreements or agree to the entry of consent 

orders. 

In cases in which the USITC finds a violation of Section 337, it must decide whether certain public 

interest factors nevertheless preclude the issuance of a remedial order. Such public interest considerations 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|177 

include an order’s effect on public health and welfare, on U.S. consumers, and on the production of 

similar U.S. products. If the USITC issues a remedial order, it transmits the order, determination, and 

supporting documentation to the President for policy review. In July 2005, President Bush assigned these 

policy review functions, which are set out in Section 337(j)(1)(B), Section 337(j)(2), and Section 

337(j)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to the USTR. The USTR conducts these reviews in consultation with 

other agencies. Importation of the subject goods may continue during this review process if the importer 

pays a bond set by the USITC. If the President (or the USTR, exercising the functions assigned by the 

President) does not disapprove the USITC’s action within 60 days, the USITC’s order becomes final. 

Section 337 determinations are subject to judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, with possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The USITC is also authorized to issue temporary exclusion or cease and desist orders before it completes 

an investigation if it determines that there is reason to believe there has been a violation of Section 337. 

In 2009, the USITC instituted thirty-one new Section 337 investigations, and three new enforcement 

proceedings. During the year, the USITC issued two general exclusion orders, nine limited exclusion 

orders, and twenty six cease and desist orders, covering imports from foreign firms, as follows: Certain 

Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-582, (a general exclusion order and two 

cease and desist orders); Certain Digital GPS Devices and Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-602, 

(a limited exclusion order and three cease and desist orders); Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing 

Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof, No. 337-TA-604 (a limited exclusion order);

Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, No. 

337-TA-605, (a limited exclusion order and five cease and desist orders); Certain Ground Fault Circuit 

Interrupters and Products Containing the Same, No. 337-TA-615, (a limited exclusion order and five 

cease and desist orders); Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods 

of Using Same, No. 337-TA-617, (a limited exclusion order and five cease and desist orders); Certain 

Self-Cleaning Litter Boxes and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-625 (a limited exclusion order and two 

cease and desist orders); Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing The Same, No. 

337-TA-629 (a limited exclusion order); Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products 

Containing the Same, No. 337-TA-631 (a limited exclusion order and two cease and desist orders); 

Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same, 

No. 337-TA-634 (a limited exclusion order and two cease and desist orders); and Certain Hair Irons and 

Packaging Thereof, No. 337-TA-637 (a general exclusion order).

b. Section 201 

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides a procedure whereby the President may grant temporary 

import relief if increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury or the threat of serious injury. 

Relief may be granted for an initial period of up to four years, with the possibility of extending the relief 

to a maximum of eight years. Import relief is designed to redress the injury and to facilitate positive 

adjustment by the domestic industry; it may consist of increased tariffs, quantitative restrictions, or other 

forms of relief. Section 201 also authorizes the President to grant provisional relief in cases involving 

“critical circumstances” or certain perishable agricultural products. 

For an industry to obtain relief under Section 201, the USITC must first determine that a product is being 

imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause (a cause which is 

important and not less than any other cause) of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the U.S. industry 

producing a like or directly competitive product. If the USITC makes an affirmative injury determination 

(or is equally divided on injury) and recommends a remedy to the President, the President may provide 

relief either in the amount recommended by the USITC or in such other amount as he finds appropriate. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 178 

The criteria for import relief in Section 201 are based on Article XIX of the GATT 1994—the so-called 

“escape clause”—and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. 

As of January 1, 2010, the United States had no measures in place under section 201. The United States 

did not impose any section 201 measures during 2009, and did not commence any safeguard 

investigations. 

c. Section 421 

The terms of China’s accession to the WTO include a unique, China-specific safeguard mechanism. The 

mechanism allows a WTO member to limit increasing imports from China that disrupt or threaten to 

disrupt its market if China does not agree to take action to remedy or prevent the disruption or threatened 

disruption. The mechanism applies to all industrial and agricultural goods and will be available until 

December 11, 2013. 

Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000, implements 

this safeguard mechanism in U.S. law. For an industry to obtain relief under Section 421, the USITC 

must first make a determination that products of China are being imported into the United States in such 

increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the 

domestic producers of like or directly competitive products. The statute directs that, if the USITC makes 

an affirmative determination, the President shall provide import relief, unless the President determines 

that provision of relief is not in the national economic interest of the United States or, in extraordinary 

cases, that the taking of action would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States. 

China’s terms of accession also permit a WTO Member to limit imports where a China-specific safeguard 

measure imposed by another Member causes or threatens to cause significant diversions of trade into the 

first Member’s market. The trade diversion provision is implemented in U.S. law by Section 422 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 

Through 2005, six petitions had been filed and adjudicated under Section 421, with no remedy imposed 

with respect to any petition. No petitions were filed between 2006 and 2008. In April 2009, the United 

Steel Workers Union filed a petition with respect to certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires. On 

September 11, 2009, the President issued a determination imposing additional duties on such tires for a 

period of three years. The additional duties went into effect on September 26, 2009. The additional duty 

is set at 35 percent ad valorem for the first year, 30 percent ad valorem for the second year, and 25 

percent ad valorem for the third year. On September 14, 2009, China requested consultations with the 

United States in the WTO with respect to the imposition of the additional duties 

7. Trade Adjustment Assistance 

a. Overview and Assistance for Workers 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers (TAA), Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(ATAA), and Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA) programs are authorized under Title 

II, Chapter 2, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. These programs, collectively referred to as Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA), provide assistance to workers who have been adversely affected by 

foreign trade (adversely affected workers). 

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Trade and Globalization Adjustment 

Assistance Act of 2009 (TGAAA), as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The 

TGAAA reauthorized TAA, expanded TAA coverage to more workers and firms, including workers and 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|179 

firms in the service sector; expanded benefits to workers whose jobs have been outsourced to foreign 

countries; improved workers’ training options; and increased the affordability of health insurance 

coverage. The reauthorization also expanded the scope of the TAA to better assist adversely affected 

workers in finding new employment. It authorized funding for employment and case management 

services, and encouraged the type of long-term training necessary for jobs in the 21st century economy 

through an extension of income support, an increase in the cap for training funding, and access to training 

for adversely affected incumbent workers. 

The TAA program currently offers the following services to eligible individuals: training, weekly income 

support, out-of-area job search and relocation allowances, case management and employment services, 

assistance with payments for health insurance coverage through the utilization of the Health Coverage 

Tax Credit (HCTC), and wage insurance for some older workers through RTAA or ATAA. RTAA is the 

wage insurance option available to reemployed older workers authorized by the TGAAA. RTAA 

replaces ATAA, which provided wage insurance to reemployed older workers as a pilot project under the 

TAA Reform Act of 2002 for adversely affected workers covered by certifications of petitions for 

eligibility filed before May 18, 2009. 

For a worker to be eligible to apply for TAA, the worker must be part of a group of workers that are the 

subject of a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Three workers of a company, a 

company official, a union or other duly authorized representative, or a One-Stop Career Center operator 

or One-Stop partner may file that petition with the DOL. In response to the filing, the DOL institutes an 

investigation to determine whether foreign trade was an important cause of the workers’ job loss or threat 

of job loss. If the DOL determines that the workers meet the statutory criteria for group certification of 

eligibility for the workers in the group to apply for TAA, the DOL grants the petition and issues a 

certification. 

The DOL administers the TAA program through the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), 

with states acting as agents of the United States in administering TAA benefits for members of TAAcertified worker groups. Once covered by a certification, individual workers apply for benefits and 

services through the One-Stop delivery system. Local One-Stop Career Centers can be found on the 

Internet at http://www.servicelocator.org or by calling 1-877-US2-JOBS. Most benefits and services have 

specific individual eligibility criteria that must be met, such as previous work history, unemployment 

insurance eligibility, and individual skill levels. 

b. Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers 

On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Bill) reauthorized and 

modified the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers program. The program provides technical 

and financial assistance to producers of raw agricultural commodities and fishermen who suffered lower 

production or lower prices due to import competition. Annual appropriations for the TAA for Farmers 

program total $90 million for each of FY2009 and FY2010, and $22.5 million for the first three months of 

FY2011. A proposed rule was announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on August 24, 2009 

seeking public comment and an interim rule which will immediately implement the program is currently 

undergoing review. 

In FY2009, outlays under the program totaled $25.0 million, although no technical assistance or cash 

payments were made to farmers or fishermen. All FY2009 outlays were administrative costs associated 

with running the program, particularly the establishment of the training component for the program ($17 

million) and the establishment of the software used for administering the petition, application, and 

payment phases of the program ($5 million). 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 180 

The previous TAA for Farmers program authorized under the Trade Act of 2002 provided approximately 

$11.5 million in cash benefits to farmers and fishermen in FY 2004. In FY2005, cash benefits to farmers 

and fishermen totaled $13.9 million and, in FY2006, these payments totaled approximately $0.82 

million. No petitions qualified for certification or re-certification in FY2007. The program was 

appropriated an additional $9.0 million and extended through the first quarter of FY2008. No petitions 

qualified for certification during this extension period. 

c. Assistance for Firms and Industries 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program (the “TAAF Program”) is authorized by Title II, 

Chapter three of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.) (the “Trade Act”). The 

TAAF Program provides technical assistance to help U.S. firms experiencing a decline in sales and 

employment to become more competitive in the global marketplace. To be certified for the TAAF 

program, a firm must show that an increase in imports of like or directly competitive articles contributed 

to an important part of its decline in sales, production, or both, and to the separation or threat of 

separation of a significant portion of the firm’s workers. The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for 

administering the TAAF Program and has delegated the statutory authority and responsibility under the 

Trade Act to the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA). EDA 

regulations implementing the TAAF Program are codified at 13 CFR Part 315 and may be accessed via 

EDA’s Internet website at: http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/Lawsreg.xml. 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, EDA awarded a total of $13,904,051 in TAAF Program funds to its national 

network of 11 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, each of which is assigned a different geographic 

service area. During FY2009, EDA certified 212 petitions for eligibility and approved 172 adjustment 

proposals. 

Additional information on the TAAF Program (including eligibility criteria and the application process) is 

available at http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/Programs.xml. 

8. United States Preference Programs 

a. Overview 

The United States has a number of programs designed to encourage economic development in lower 

income countries by offering preferential duty-free U.S market access to imports from countries covered 

by these programs. Individual countries may be covered by more than one preferential access program 

with the opportunity for exporters to choose among programs when seeking preferential access to the U.S. 

market. The extent to which developing countries take advantage of the preferential access provided 

under U.S. trade law is measured by the total value of imports (for consumption) receiving preferential 

access under any one of the individual programs. Such U.S. imports totaled an estimated $54 billion in 

2009, down 51 percent from 2008 ($110 billion). The 51 percent decline in imports under these five 

programs compares to the overall 30 percent decline for U.S. total goods imports (for consumption) from 

the world over the same period. These declines reflect the global recession as well as lower petroleum 

prices. 

As a share of total U.S. goods imports for consumption, these preferential imports declined from 5.3 

percent in 2008 to 3.8 percent in 2009. The programs, with each one’s share of total imports from the 

group, are as follows: African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA, excluding GSP), 45 percent; GSP, 35 

percent; Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), 16 percent; Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) 2 percent; 

and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act (CBTPA), 2 percent. The programs with the lowest 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|181 

decline in usage between 2008 and 2009 were CBTPA (down 37 percent) and GSP (down 39 percent). 

Usage under ATPA was down 49 percent, AGOA (excluding GSP) was down 58 percent, and CBI was 

down 67 percent. 

b. Generalized System of Preferences 

History and Purposes 

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program was initially authorized under the Trade Act 

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2461 et seq.) for a ten-year period, beginning on January 1, 1976. Congress has 

extended the program 11 times, most recently, in December 2009. The program is currently set to expire 

on December 31, 2010. 

The GSP program is designed to promote economic growth in the developing world by providing 

preferential duty-free entry for 4,881 products from 131 designated beneficiary countries and territories. 

Duty-free treatment under the GSP program is not available for products that the President determines to 

be import sensitive or that the statute excludes from the program. An underlying principle of the GSP 

program is that the creation of trade opportunities for developing countries is an effective way of 

encouraging broad-based economic development and a key means of sustaining momentum for their 

economic reform and liberalization. The GSP program also ensures that U.S. companies have access to 

inputs from beneficiary countries on generally the same terms that are available to competitors in other 

developed countries that grant similar trade preferences. 

Beneficiaries 

There are currently two types of GSP beneficiaries: those that are eligible to export approximately 3,447 

products duty-free into the United States and those for which, in 1996, Congress authorized additional 

GSP benefits because they are “least-developed” beneficiary developing countries30. Subsequently, these 

countries were given the opportunity to export an additional 1,434 products to the United States duty-free. 

In December 2009, changes to the list of beneficiary countries were announced. The Maldives was 

redesignated as a beneficiary of the GSP program. Cape Verde was removed as a Least-Developed 

Beneficiary Developing Country, but remained eligible for GSP benefits as a Beneficiary Developing 

Country. Croatia and Equatorial Guinea were notified that, as of January 1, 2010, their gross national 

incomes per capita exceeded statutory thresholds. They will be removed from GSP eligibility as of 

January 1, 2011, after a transition period. Trinidad and Tobago was removed from GSP eligibility as of 

January 1, 2010, after a two-year transition period. Vietnam’s request to become a GSP beneficiary 

continues to be under review. 

Through various mechanisms, the GSP program encourages beneficiaries to: (1) eliminate or reduce 

significant barriers to trade in goods, services, and investment; (2) afford workers internationally 

recognized worker rights; and (3) provide adequate and effective intellectual property rights protection 

and enforcement. U.S. industry has noted that a country’s participation in the GSP program nurtures 

conditions that benefit U.S. investors as well as the beneficiary countries. The Administration also 

evaluates the extent to which GSP beneficiaries have assured the United States that they will provide 

equitable and reasonable access to their markets. 

 

30 In practice, those GSP beneficiaries that are on the United Nations list of least-developed countries.
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 182 

Eligible Products 

The list of GSP-eligible products from all beneficiaries includes most non-sensitive dutiable manufactures 

and semi-manufactures and selected agricultural, fishery, and primary industrial products not otherwise 

duty-free. The statute precludes certain import-sensitive articles from receiving GSP treatment, including 

most non-silk textiles and apparel, watches, footwear, handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves, and 

other leather apparel. The products that receive preferential access just from least-developed beneficiaries 

include petroleum, certain chemicals and plastics, animal and plant products, and prepared food, 

beverages, spirits, and tobacco products. 

Although GSP benefits for textiles and apparel are limited, certain handmade folkloric products are 

eligible for GSP treatment. The United States has entered into agreements providing for certification and 

GSP eligibility of certain handmade, folkloric products with 15 beneficiary countries: Afghanistan, 

Argentina, Botswana, Cambodia, Colombia, Egypt, Jordan, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, 

Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uruguay. Such agreements provide the basis for extending duty-free 

treatment to exports produced by women and the poorest, often rural, residents of beneficiary countries. 

Program Results 

Value of Trade Entering the United States under the GSP program: The value of U.S. imports entering 

under the GSP program in 2009 was approximately $19.6 billion, a 38.2 percent decrease compared to 

2008. Total U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries decreased by 39 percent over the same period, 

reflecting the global and U.S. economic downturns. It is important to note that between the second and 

third quarters, U.S. imports under GSP have increased by nearly 17 percent. 

Top U.S. imports31 under the GSP program in 2009 

(through November), by trade value, were crude 

petroleum oils and oils from bituminous minerals, 

which are eligible for duty-free import only from LeastDeveloped Beneficiary Developing Countries 

(LDBDCs), silver jewelry valued at over $18 per dozen 

pieces or parts, vehicle car radial tires, gold necklaces 

and neck chains, precious metal (other than silver) 

articles of jewelry, aluminum alloy, plates or sheets 

clad, not canned or frozen miscellaneous food 

preparations, cane sugar, and polyethylene terephtlalate 

(PET) resin seamless gloves of vulcanized rubber (not 

surgical or medical). 

In 2009 (through November), based on trade value, the 

top five GSP non-oil-exporting beneficiary developing 

country (BDC) suppliers were: (1) India; (2) Thailand; 

(3) Brazil; (4) Indonesia; and (5) the Philippines. Of 

the 30 GSP beneficiaries (not including LDBDC oilexporting beneficiaries) whose trade under the GSP 

program was the largest, the World Bank classified 

more than half (18 of 30) as either low income or lower 

 

31 Based on tariff line (eight-digit) classification in the HTSUS.

Where Exports entering under GSP Comprise a 

Large Percentage of a Country’s Total Exports 

In February 2008, the United States recognized 

the government of Kosovo and a year later, 

Kosovo became a GSP beneficiary. No exports 

from Kosovo to the United States were recorded 

in 2008 and, of its total exports to the United 

States YTD 2009 (November), 83 percent entered 

duty-free under the GSP program. For 12 other 

beneficiaries not exporting petroleum under the 

GSP program, their GSP exports accounted for 

between 22 and 98 percent of their overall goods 

trade to the United States. This demonstrates the 

significant impact the GSP program has on new 

and developing economies, and the geographic 

diversity of the countries benefiting from such 

benefits. These beneficiaries and the share of 

each country’s exports to the United States under 

the GSP program in 2009 (through November), 

were: Mauritania (98 percent), Armenia (86 

percent), Paraguay (64 percent), Lebanon (57 

percent), West Bank (63 percent), Tunisia (50 

percent), Malawi (37 percent), Fiji (35 percent), 

Samoa (28 percent), Bolivia (26 percent), Croatia 

(22 percent), and Montenegro (22 percent). 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|183 

middle income countries32. For the first time, in 2009 two LDBDCs – Malawi and Bangladesh – ranked 

in the top thirty non-oil-exporting suppliers of exports entering the United States under the GSP program. 

In addition, exports from many low income and lower middle income beneficiaries33 entering the United 

States under the GSP program either occurred for the first time in 2009 or increased as compared to the 

same period in 2008, in contrast to overall export/import trends. Low income suppliers34 whose exports 

under the GSP program increased included: Benin, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ghana, Malawi, Mauritania, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Lower-middle income suppliers which recorded increases 

included: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Swaziland, 

Tanzania, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and the West Bank35. 

 

The top three LDBDC users of GSP benefits, because of large volumes of petroleum exports under the 

GSP program, were: (1) Angola; (2) Equatorial Guinea; and (3) Chad. Other top LDBDC users, in order 

of exports under the GSP program in 2009, included: (4) Democratic Republic of Congo; (5) Mauritania; 

(6) Malawi; and (7) Bangladesh. 

The GSP Program’s Contribution to Economic Development in Developing Nations: The GSP program 

helps countries diversify and expand their exports, an important developmental goal. The 2009 (through 

November) data on exports to the United States indicates that many beneficiaries have made progress in 

diversifying and expanding their exports to the United States under the GSP program, despite challenging 

economic conditions. For example, Sri Lanka’s exports under the GSP program have grown to 253 

different types of products. Exports under the GSP program from Bangladesh, Belize, Ethiopia, Samoa, 

Sierra Leone, and Tunisia have also diversified and expanded. 

Efforts to promote wider distribution of the use of GSP benefits among beneficiaries: As directed by 

Congress, the Administration has sought to broaden the use of the GSP program’s benefits among its 

beneficiary countries. As indicated above, two least-developed GSP beneficiaries, Malawi and 

Bangladesh, are among the top 30 GSP suppliers overall. In addition, 22 low income countries and 

LDBCDs experienced increases in exports entering the United States under the GSP program against a 

trend of overall decreases in all exports to the United States. 

The GSP program in 2009 focused its educational outreach on beneficiary countries in or previously 

affected by conflict (Afghanistan, Georgia, Kosovo, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) and countries in North 

Africa, South Asia, and Latin America with high percentages of young populations (Bangladesh, Egypt, 

Paraguay, and Tunisia). For additional details and multiple-language GSP guides and country-specific 

analyses, go to “GSP-in-Use: Country-Specific Information” at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/tradedevelopment/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/gsp-use-%E2%80%93-coun

There are many country-specific success stories. For example, Afghanistan's agricultural and artisanal 

exports to the United States have increased substantially since the United States strengthened outreach on 

the duty-free export opportunities available to the country's producers. In 2007, only dried apricots and a 

small amount of dried berries were exported to the United States under the GSP program. In the first nine 

 

32Based on World Bank determinations of gross national incomes per capita (Atlas method – 2008 – latest 

available).

33Based on World Bank determinations of gross national incomes per capita (Atlas method – 2008 – latest 

available).

34 Not including those eligible to export petroleum to the United States under the GSP program.

35 The World Bank classifies the West Bank and Gaza, together, as a lower-middle income economy. The 

export figure is only for the West Bank (USITC data).
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 184 

months of 2009, however, gold jewelry and six additional types of agricultural products, including dried 

plums, prunes, figs, dried peas, and dried fruit mixtures, have begun to enter under the GSP program. 

In September 2008, USTR traveled to Georgia with the Departments of State and Commerce to provide 

GSP information and analyses to Georgian producers and exporters. In the intervening year, exports from 

Georgia's agricultural and processed food sectors – which were emphasized because of their benefit to 

rural Georgians – have increased substantially, even as the country’s overall exports to the United States 

under GSP have decreased. For example, there were first-time exports of sparkling wine, fruit jellies, 

jams, prepared vegetables, spices and certain nuts and seeds. Exports of nonalcoholic beverages, 

vegetable mixtures, and certain sauces and sauce preparations have each increased significantly. 

Similarly, in October 2008, USTR worked with the Department of State to give a series of GSP 

educational seminars to industry and government in three Tunisian cities. Several exports under the GSP 

program that were highlighted during the seminars increased or appeared for the first time, 

notwithstanding that total exports from Tunisia decreased significantly in 2009. These products include 

sauces and condiments, dates, certain virgin olive oil, and gold necklaces. 

The GSP program provides duty-free access for many items produced by small and medium-sized 

businesses, including in rural areas, such as wooden jewelry boxes, rattan basketwork, string instruments, 

and certain national flags. Exports of these flags by least-developed countries Cambodia and Haiti in 

2009 (through October) grew substantially in 2009. 

Impact of Policy Changes: Based on statutory thresholds added by Congress in December 2006, “supercompetitive” exports from certain countries have been removed from GSP eligibility, providing an 

opening for other beneficiary countries to supply the U.S. market. This has occurred, for example, 

regarding U.S. imports of gold jewelry. 

In June 2007, the President removed GSP eligibility of gold jewelry (except for necklaces and neck 

chains) from India and Thailand. A year later, the President removed GSP eligibility of the same 

products from Turkey and gold necklaces (other than of rope or mixed link) from India. In 2009 (through 

November), despite an overall decrease of nearly 30 percent in all exports into the United States of gold 

jewelry (not including necklaces and neck chains), exports under GSP from a number of beneficiaries 

increased substantially, including from least-developed beneficiaries Nepal, Mauritius, and first-time 

exporters Afghanistan and Zambia. Other beneficiaries experiencing substantial export increases under 

GSP included Lebanon, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Despite a drop of more than 37 percent in all exports 

into the United States of gold necklaces (not including rope or mixed link necklaces), LDBCs 

Afghanistan, Mauritius, Tanzania, and Yemen exported the same product under the GSP program for the 

first time, and necklace exports increased substantially from Nepal and Cambodia, both LDBCs. Other 

beneficiaries exporting increased amounts of this type of necklaces in 2009 were Lebanon, Pakistan, 

Indonesia, Tunisia, Colombia, Uruguay, and the Philippines. 

Benefits to the U.S. Economy: The GSP program helps not only beneficiary developing countries, but also 

U.S. businesses and families. The program is a major source of imports and products for U.S. businesses, 

including small and medium-sized companies, and includes important partnership opportunities between 

U.S. workers and businesses, and workers and businesses in beneficiary developing countries. The GSP 

program also provides a major contribution toward reducing costs for U.S. manufacturers that utilize 

inputs that are not produced or available domestically. This facet of the GSP program helps to improve 

the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and avoids U.S. manufacturers paying higher duties which are 

then passed on to customers. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|185 

Annual Reviews 

An important attribute of the GSP program is its ability to adapt, product by product, to shifting market 

conditions; to the changing needs of producers, workers, exporters, importers, and consumers; and to 

concerns about individual beneficiaries’ conformity with the statutory criteria for eligibility. Detailed 

information on elements of each Annual Review is available on the GSP Program Information Page on 

the USTR website (http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1578). 

Conclusion of the 2008 GSP Annual Review 

Presidential Proclamation 8394, signed on June 29, 2009, announced the results of the 2008 GSP Annual 

Review of product petitions. Those results are available at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/tradedevelopment/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp/current-reviews. 

The GSP 2008 Annual Review also involved an analysis of petitions to withdraw or limit a country's GSP 

benefits for not meeting certain GSP eligibility criteria. Several beneficiaries remained under active 

scrutiny, including: Lebanon, Russia and Uzbekistan regarding IPR protection, and Bangladesh, Niger, 

the Philippines and Uzbekistan regarding workers’ rights. The petitions on workers’ rights in Iraq and Sri 

Lanka received during the 2008 review remain under consideration. 

2009 GSP Annual Review 

On June 28, 2009, a notice was published in the Federal Register announcing that USTR would receive 

petitions to modify the list of products eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP program and to 

modify the GSP status of certain beneficiary developing countries because of country practices. This 

notice initiated the 2009 Annual Review. Information on the petitions accepted for review that seek to 

add or remove items from the list of GSP-eligible products or that seek the grant of waivers to statutory 

competitive need limitations can be found at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/tradedevelopment/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp/current-review-1. 

c. The African Growth and Opportunity Act 

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) provides incentives to promote economic reform and 

trade expansion in eligible sub-Saharan African countries, including duty-free access to the U.S. market 

for over 1800 products beyond those eligible under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 

program. The additional products include value-added agricultural and manufactured goods such as 

processed food products, apparel, and footwear. Forty sub-Saharan African countries were eligible for 

AGOA in 2009. Over 95 percent of U.S. imports from these countries entered the United States duty-free 

in 2009. Thanks in part to AGOA, the United States is sub-Saharan Africa’s largest single-country 

market.

AGOA requires the President to monitor, review, and report to Congress annually on the progress of subSaharan African countries in meeting the AGOA eligibility criteria set out in the legislation – including 

continual progress in establishing a market-based economy, rule of law, and protection of internationallyrecognized workers rights. The U.S. Trade Representative makes recommendations to the President 

based on an annual country eligibility review that takes into account information drawn from U.S. 

Government agencies, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and prospective beneficiary 

governments. Following the 2009 review, on December 23, 2009 President Obama added Mauritania to 

the list of AGOA-eligible countries for 2010 and terminated the AGOA eligibility of three other 

countries, Guinea, Madagascar, and Niger, effective January 1, 2010.
V. Trade Enforcement Activities | 186 

AGOA and related GSP imports from AGOA-eligible countries were valued at $29.8 billion for the first 

11 months of 2009, down 53 percent from the corresponding period in 2008, largely due to the downturn 

in the global economy.36 Petroleum products continued to account for the largest portion of AGOA 

imports, with a 90 percent share of overall AGOA/GSP imports. In the first 11 months of 2009, 

AGOA/GSP non-oil imports from AGOA beneficiary countries fell 35 percent to $3.0 billion. Leading 

non-oil imports in 2009 included apparel, vehicles and parts, ferroalloys, citrus, chemicals, wine, nuts, 

and fruit juices. 

d. Andean Trade Preference Act

The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) was enacted in 1991 to promote broad-based economic 

development, diversify exports, and combat drug trafficking by providing sustainable economic 

alternatives to drug-crop production in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. In 2002, the Andean Trade 

Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) amended the ATPA to provide duty-free treatment for a 

number of products previously excluded under the original ATPA program. The most significant 

expansion of benefits was in the apparel sector. 

On April 30, 2009, pursuant to section 203(f) of the ATPA, as amended, USTR transmitted its Fourth 

Report to Congress on the Operation of the Andean Trade Preference Act as Amended. The report 

described the main features of the program, analyzed trade trends and outlined the countries’ performance 

related to the program’s eligibility criteria. 

On June 30, 2009, the Obama Administration submitted to the U.S. Congress the Determinations and 

Report of the President Concerning the Review of Ecuador and Bolivia Under the Andean Trade 

Preference Act, As Amended. The report identified some concerns regarding Ecuador’s performance 

under the criteria that the President indicated the Administration would monitor. Under the statute, 

products of Bolivia were to remain in the program only if the President determined that Bolivia had 

satisfied ATPA/ATPDEA eligibility requirements. In his June 30, 2009 report to Congress, the President 

did not find that Bolivia was meeting the eligibility criteria. The President directed the Administration to 

work with the government of Bolivia to improve cooperation with respect to our common objective of 

combating the production, of and trafficking in, illicit narcotics, and if cooperation improves, to work 

with Congress to restore benefits to Bolivia under the ATPA program. In December 2009 Congress 

extended the program through 2010 for Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. 

e. Caribbean Basin Initiative 

During 2009, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and the United States-Caribbean 

Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) trade programs, collectively known as the CBI, remained a vital 

element in U.S. economic relations with its neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean. The CBI 

provides beneficiary countries and territories with duty-free access to the U.S. market. Current 

beneficiary countries are: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin 

Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, St. Kitts 

and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. 

On August 5, 2004, the United States signed the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) with five Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) and the Dominican Republic. When the CAFTA-DR entered into 

force for each of these countries, the country ceased to be designated as a CBERA and CBTPA 

 

36 On an imports for consumption basis. 
V. Trade Enforcement Activities|187 

beneficiary. The CAFTA-DR entered into force for Costa Rica on January 1, 2009 and is now in force 

for all 7 countries. 

Since its inception, the CBI has helped beneficiaries diversify their exports. In conjunction with 

economic reform and trade liberalization by beneficiary countries, the trade benefits of CBI have 

contributed to their economic growth. In December 2009, USTR submitted its biannual report to 

Congress on the operation of the CBERA. The report can be found on the USTR website, www.ustr.gov. 

f. HOPE II Act 

On October 16, 2009, the White House announced that Haiti will continue to be eligible for the benefits 

of the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II), 

which allows duty-free access to the U.S. market for certain Haitian-made apparel and other articles, with 

the goals of fostering stability and economic development in Haiti. The President has certified to 

Congress that Haiti has met the necessary requirements to continue the duty-free treatment provided 

under HOPE II. Under the 2008 legislation, to receive the benefits Haiti was required to establish an 

independent labor ombudsman's office and a program operated by the International Labor Organization 

(ILO) to assess compliance with core labor rights and Haiti's labor laws in the country's apparel factories. 

Haiti also had to agree to require Haitian producers that wish to be eligible for duty-free treatment under 

HOPE II to participate in the ILO program and to develop a system to ensure such participation. 

The HOPE II Act was enacted in 2008 as a continuation and expansion of the original HOPE Act of 2006. 

These programs acted as extensions of the benefits provided by the Caribbean Basin Initiative trade 

programs. HOPE II provides for duty-free access for up to 70 million square meter equivalents (SME) of 

knit apparel (with some t-shirt and sweatshirt exclusions) and 70 million SMEs of woven apparel without 

regard to the country of origin of the fabric or components, as long as the apparel is wholly assembled or 

knit-to-shape in Haiti. HOPE II provides for duty-free treatment of knit or woven apparel under a "three 

for one" earned import allowance program: for every three SMEs of qualifying fabric (sourced from the 

United States or certain trade partner countries) shipped to Haiti for production of apparel, qualifying 

apparel producers may export duty-free from Haiti or the Dominican Republic to the United States one 

SME of apparel wholly-formed or knit-to-shape in Haiti regardless of the source of the fabric. HOPE II 

also provides for duty-free treatment for certain brassieres, luggage, headgear, and certain sleepwear. 

HOPE II allows these Haitian goods to enter the United States duty-free if shipped either directly from 

Haiti or through the Dominican Republic. 

On January 12, 2010, Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake. Generating jobs through exports will 

be one of the keys to Haiti’s recovery. Textiles and apparel have represented approximately 90 percent of 

Haiti’s exports to the United States; thus, recovery in this sector will be critical to Haiti’s long term 

economic prospects. On February 16, 2010, Ambassador Ron Kirk announced a new initiative called the 

Plus One for Haiti program, in which U.S. brands and retailers work toward sourcing one percent of their 

total apparel production from Haiti. In addition, USTR looks forward to working with the Senate Finance 

and House Ways and Means Committees in Congress as they seek to pass legislation regarding Haiti and 

trade. 
VI. Trade Policy Development |189 

VI. TRADE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

A. Trade Capacity Building (TCB) (“Aid for Trade”) 

The Obama Administration is building a global development policy to guide the efforts of the U.S. 

Government to ensure that U.S. development policies support and reinforce other U.S. foreign policy and 

international economic policy goals. The Administration believes a deliberate development policy with 

effective implementation will increase results on the ground in developing countries, thereby improving 

lives and livelihoods around the globe. In addition, improving the ability of the United States to work 

effectively with capable and responsible states furthers U.S. national interests and the pursuit of the 

objective of economic growth both at home and abroad. Many of today’s emerging market economies 

were low income developing countries only a generation ago. It is in the national interest to replicate that 

experience with current low income developing countries where possible and to alleviate poverty and 

improve opportunities. Doing so will require the engagement of several U.S. government agencies and 

departments in development activities, as trade policy and development assistance need to work together 

to achieve these objectives. 

Trade policy and development assistance are key tools in the U.S. arsenal, working together to alleviate 

poverty and improve opportunities. These programs, also known as aid for trade, are about giving 

countries, particularly the least trade active, the training and technical assistance needed to make: 

decisions about the benefits of trade arrangements and reforms; implement their obligations to bring 

certainty to their trade regimes; and enhance such countries’ ability to take advantage of the opportunities 

of the multilateral trading system and to compete in a global economy. Accordingly, U.S. assistance 

addresses a broad range of issues so that rural areas and small businesses, including female entrepreneurs, 

benefit from ambitious reforms in trade rules that are being negotiated in the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) and in other trade agreements. 

An important element of this work involves coordination of technical assistance activities among 

international institutions in order to identify and take advantage of donor complementarities in 

programming and to avoid duplication. Such institutions include the WTO, the World Bank, the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF), the regional development banks, and other donors. The United 

States works in partnership with these institutions and with other donors to ensure that international 

financial institutions offer trade-related assistance as an integral component of development programs 

tailored to the circumstances within each developing country. 

The United States’ efforts build on its long-standing commitment to help partner countries benefit from 

the opportunities provided by the global trading system, both through bilateral U.S. assistance and 

through U.S. support for multilateral institutions. U.S. bilateral assistance includes programs such as 

targeted assistance for developing countries participating in U.S. preference programs (e.g., the $200 

million African Global Competitiveness Initiative helping sub-Saharan African countries benefit from 

AGOA); coordination of assistance through Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs); TCB 

working groups that are integral elements of negotiations to conclude Free Trade Agreements (FTAs); 

and Committees on TCB created to aid in the implementation of a number of FTAs, including the FTAs 

with the Dominican Republic and Central America, and Peru. Bilateral assistance also helps developing 

countries to work with the private sector and non-governmental organizations to transition to a more open 

economy, to prepare for WTO negotiations, and to implement their trade obligations. Multilaterally, the 

United States has supported and will continue to support trade-specific assistance mechanisms like the 
VI. Trade Policy Development | 190 

Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Assistance to Least-developed Countries (EIF) and 

the WTO=s Global Trust Fund for Trade-Related Technical Assistance. 

1. Millennium Challenge Corporation 

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a U.S. government foreign assistance agency and one 

of the largest sources of bilateral TCB assistance for eligible countries. Established in 2004, MCC works 

with developing countries committed to good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their 

citizens. MCC provides these well-performing countries with large scale grants to fund country-led 

solutions for reducing poverty through sustainable economic growth. By giving eligible countries the 

opportunity to identify their own priorities and develop their own proposals for reducing poverty and 

spurring economic growth, the MCC enables countries to address long-term development obstacles, 

including in the area of trade. The U.S. Trade Representative is a member of the MCC’s Board of 

Directors. 

The primary vehicle for delivering MCC assistance is through a “compact”, a multi-year agreement 

between the MCC and an eligible country to fund specific programs targeted at reducing poverty and 

stimulating economic growth. To provide further incentive for reform and help additional countries 

qualify for compacts, the MCC provides “threshold” assistance to countries that fall just short of compact 

eligibility to help them address specific areas of policy weakness. The MCC is engaged with a total of 38 

countries and has entered into 20 compacts and 20 threshold agreements totaling more than $7.5 billion in 

assistance of which more than $4.2 billion is trade-related. An additional six compacts are under 

development. In December 2009, the MCC Board of Directors invited Cape Verde be the first country to 

begin the process of developing a second compact. 

2. The Enhanced Integrated Framework 

The Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) is a multi-organization multi-donor program that operates as a 

coordination mechanism for trade-related assistance to least developed countries (LDCs) with the overall 

objective of integrating trade into national development plans. Participating organizations include the 

WTO, World Bank, IMF, UNCTAD, UNDP, UNIDO and the International Trade Centre. The 

mechanism incorporates a country-specific diagnostic assessment and action plan formulated by one of 

the international organizations in cooperation with the participating LDC. The action plan, consisting of 

needs identified by the diagnostic assessment, is offered to multilateral and bilateral donors. Project 

design and implementation can be accomplished through the resources of the EIF Trust Fund or through 

multilateral or bilateral donor programs in the field (as the United States does through its development 

assistance programs). The EIF is exclusively for LDCs, with the goal of getting the least trade-active 

more involved. Of the 49 LDCs, 47 have joined the EIF. 

Institutionally, the EIF is overseen by a Board of Directors, composed of donor countries, least-developed 

countries and participating international organizations. The EIF Secretariat, led by an executive director, 

is responsible for programmatic implementation, while the EIF Trust Fund Manager is responsible for 

financial aspects of the program. 

The United States supports the EIF primarily through complementary bilateral assistance to EIF 

participating countries. The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) bilateral 

assistance to LDC participants supports initiatives both to integrate trade into national economic and 

development strategies and to address high priority capacity building needs designed to accelerate 

integration into the global trading system. 
VI. Trade Policy Development |191 

3. World Trade Organization-Related U.S. Trade-Related Assistance

International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic growth and the alleviation of 

poverty. The WTO’s Doha Development Agenda (DDA) recognizes that TCB can facilitate more 

effective integration of developing countries into the international trading system and enable them to 

benefit further from global trade. The United States provides leadership in promoting trade and economic 

growth in developing countries through comprehensive TCB programs. The United States also directly 

supports the WTO’s trade-related technical assistance. 

a. Global Trust Fund 

The United States supports the trade-related assistance activities of the WTO Secretariat through 

contributions to the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund. With an additional contribution of 

nearly $1 million in 2009, total U.S. contributions to the WTO have amounted to almost $9 million since 

the launch of DDA negotiations. 

b. Aid for Trade 

The WTO’s 2005 Hong Kong Declaration created a new WTO framework in which to discuss and 

prioritize aid for trade. In 2006, this framework created an Aid for Trade Task Force to operationalize aid 

for trade efforts and offer recommendations as to how to improve the efficacy and efficiency of these 

efforts among WTO Members and other international organizations. The United States continues to be an 

active partner in the aid for trade discussion. 

During 2009, Members actively worked on implementing many of the Task Force’s recommendations. 

This activity was capped by the Second Global Review of Aid for Trade in July 2009. This meeting saw a 

greater focus—and significant results—in developing countries’ efforts to better integrate trade needs into 

their national development plans. A monitoring framework was further developed, based largely on work 

undertaken by the OECD’s Development Cooperation and Trade directorates, working closely with the 

WTO Secretariat, the World Bank, and donor and recipient countries. For additional information on Aid 

for Trade and its components, visit the USTR’S Aid for Trade webpage at http://www.ustr.gov/tradetopics/trade-development/trade-capacity-building/aid-trade. 

c. WTO and Trade Facilitation 

The United States has provided substantial assistance over the years in the areas of customs and trade 

facilitation. More recently, U.S. support for work in trade and development corridors in Africa, including 

through the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, is increasing. Through this assistance, the 

United States has supported the WTO Doha discussions by providing assistance to developing countries 

that seek help in responding to the regulatory proposals made by members in the Negotiating Group on 

Trade Facilitation. 

d. WTO Accession 

The United States provides technical support to countries that are in the process of acceding to the WTO. 

In 2009, WTO accession support was provided to Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Ethiopia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Yemen. 
VI. Trade Policy Development | 192 

4. TCB Initiatives for Africa

The United States has aggressively funded programs and developed several new initiatives at multilateral 

and bilateral levels to address the specific needs of sub-Saharan African countries with respect to 

reducing poverty and spurring economic growth. The United States has invested more than $3.3 billion 

in trade-related projects in sub-Saharan Africa since 2001. 

a. African Global Competitiveness Initiative 

The centerpiece of U.S. support for building trade capacity in Africa for the last five years has been the 

$200 million African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI). The primary focus of AGCI is helping 

to expand African trade and investment with the United States, with other international trading partners, 

and regionally within Africa through improving the competitiveness of sub-Saharan African enterprises. 

AGCI’s objectives are to: (1) improve the business climate for private sector-led trade and investment; (2) 

strengthen the knowledge and skills of sub-Saharan African private sector enterprises to take advantage of 

market opportunities; (3) increase access to financial services for trade and investment; and (4) facilitate 

investments in infrastructure. 

One major focus of AGCI programs is to help African countries make the most of the trade opportunities 

available under the AGOA preference program. (For additional information, see Chapter V.B.8.c.) 

AGCI supports AGOA through programs carried out by four USAID-funded Regional Hubs for Global 

Competitiveness – in Botswana, Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal – as well as through programs carried out by 

USAID bilateral missions. 

In 2009, the Hubs facilitated over $71 million in transactions in the textile and apparel, specialty food, cut 

flowers, and other product categories, mostly through new trade deals under AGOA. These results reflect 

a strategic emphasis by the U.S. Government on providing marketing assistance to African exporters at 

major international trade shows. Under an agreement with USAID, USDA addresses sanitary and 

phytosanitary issues under AGCI, specifically in the areas of food safety and plant and animal health. 

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program is working to 

improve protection of intellectual property rights. 

b. Assistance to West African Cotton Producers 

Since 2005, the United States has mobilized its development agencies to help West African countries—

Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, and Senegal—address obstacles they face in the cotton sector. The 

MCC, USAID, USDA, and the United States Trade and Development Agency continued to work with 

these nations as they sought to develop a coherent long-term development strategy to improve prospects 

in the cotton sector. Elements of such a strategy include improved productivity, domestic reforms, and 

other key issues. The United States will continue to coordinate with the WTO, World Bank, the African 

Development Bank, and others as part of the multilateral effort to address the development aspects of 

cotton. This includes active participation in the WTO Secretariat’s periodic meetings with donors and 

recipient countries to discuss the development and reform aspects of cotton. 

The centerpiece of U.S. assistance to the cotton sector in West Africa is USAID’s West Africa Cotton 

Improvement Program (WACIP). The program is aimed at helping to improve the production and 

marketing of cotton in five countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, and Senegal. The WACIP is 

designed to help achieve the following objectives: (1) reduce soil degradation and expand the use of good 

agricultural practices; (2) strengthen private agricultural organizations; (3) establish a West African 

regional training program for ginners; (4) improve the quality of West African cotton through better 
VI. Trade Policy Development |193 

classification of seed cotton and lint; (5) improve linkages between U.S. and West African research 

organizations involved with cotton; (6) improve the enabling environment for agricultural biotechnology; 

and (7) assist with policy/institutional reform. 

A key element of the WACIP program is the identification of specific policy priorities through National 

Advisory Committees. Composed of stakeholders in each country, these committees undertook work to 

identify the specific projects that would yield the assistance and results sought by participants and these 

projects have been the basis of WACIP’s work. 

The U.S. Government also provides complementary support to the cotton sector through other programs. 

MCC is implementing compacts with Benin ($307 million), Burkina Faso ($481 million), and Mali ($460 

million). In September 2009, the MCC signed a $540 million compact with Senegal. The program will 

promote economic growth in the rural agriculture sector. 

5. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Negotiations

Although the WTO programs and the EIF are high priorities, they are only part of the U.S. TCB effort. In 

order to help U.S. FTA partners participate in negotiations, implement commitments, and benefit over the 

long-term, USTR has created TCB working groups in free trade negotiations with developing countries 

and Committees on TCB to prioritize and coordinate TCB activities during the transition and 

implementation periods once an FTA enters into force. USAID and USDA, their field missions, and a 

number of other U.S. Government assistance providers actively participate in these working groups and 

committees so that the TCB needs identified can be quickly and efficiently incorporated into ongoing 

regional and country assistance programs. The Committees on TCB also invite non-government 

organizations, representatives from the private sector, and international institutions to join in building the 

trade capacity of the countries in each region. Trade capacity building is a fundamental feature of 

bilateral cooperation in support of the CAFTA-DR and the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 

Agreement, as well as the FTAs signed with Colombia and Panama. USTR also works closely with the 

U.S. Department of State and other agencies to track and guide the delivery of TCB assistance to Jordan, 

Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman. 

a. Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement 

The CAFTA-DR established a Committee on TCB. The CAFTA-DR was signed in 2004 and went into 

force for all countries except Costa Rica during 2006 and 2007, and for Costa Rica in 2009. The 

Committee on TCB has convened formally three times: in Guatemala City, Guatemala in February 2007; 

in Washington, DC in November 2007; and in Santa Domingo of the Dominican Republic in November 

2008. These meetings were attended by representatives of each of the member countries and by the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, the Organization of American States (OAS), and 

the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), providing the opportunity for 

the Committee to review updates of recipient members’ trade capacity building strategies and priorities as 

well as U.S. donor agencies’ and the international institutions’ trade capacity building activities. They 

additionally provided the opportunity for in-depth discussions of particular assistance areas, such as rural 

development and sanitary and phytosanitary assistance. Although the political crisis in Honduras 

prevented a formal meeting of the Committee in 2009, bilateral TCB efforts and programs continued 

throughout 2009. 

Efforts in 2009 included a range of activities to streamline customs procedures for importers and 

exporters, many of which directly support implementation of the FTA. These included the identification 
VI. Trade Policy Development | 194 

of corrective actions to comply with customs clearance deadlines established by the Agreement. U.S. 

sanitary and phytosanitary TCB helped to enable farmers and small and medium-sized rural enterprises to 

benefit from the agreement. As a result, meat exports to the United States increased by 78 percent 

between 2006 and 2008 and pepper exports increased from $126,000 in 2005 to over $11 million in 2008 

and 2009. 

b. United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 

The United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) entered into force on February 1, 2009. 

Like the CAFTA-DR, the PTPA includes a provision that creates a Committee on TCB to build on work 

done during the negotiations by the TCB working group. The purpose of the Committee is to assist Peru 

in refining and implementing its national TCB strategy as well as to foster assistance to promote 

economic growth, reduce poverty, and adjust to liberalized trade. The Committee met in March 2009 in 

Peru. At that time, Peru presented a preliminary national trade capacity building strategy to address these 

objectives, highlighting areas such as telecommunications, intellectual property and agricultural 

standards. The Committee is currently working to address these objectives. 

c. United States-Colombia and United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreements 

In November 2006, the United States and Colombia signed an FTA—The United States-Colombia Trade 

Promotion Agreement. On June 28, 2007, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement was 

signed. As with the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, these two agreements include the 

creation of Committees on TCB to build upon the progress made by the preceding TCB working groups 

on economic assistance and poverty alleviation. 

B. Public Input and Transparency 

Broadening opportunities for public input and increasing the transparency of trade policy is a key priority 

of USTR’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement (IAPE) under the Obama 

Administration. IAPE works with USTR’s Office of Public and Media Affairs and with regional and 

functional offices across the agency to ensure that timely trade information is available to the public and 

disseminated widely. This is accomplished in part via USTR’s new interactive website; a weekly enewsletter that is available through our homepage at http://www.ustr.gov; online posting of Federal 

Register Notices soliciting public comment and input and publicizing Trade Policy Staff Committee 

(TPSC) public hearings; increased transparency regarding specific policy initiatives; managing the 

agency’s increased outreach and engagement with small and medium-sized businesses; meetings with a 

broad array of domestic stakeholders including but not limited to agriculture groups, industry groups, 

labor groups, small businesses, NGOs, universities, think tanks, and state and local governments; and 

speeches to associations and conferences around the country regarding trade. In addition to public 

outreach, IAPE is responsible for administering USTR’s statutory advisory committee system created by 

Congress under the Trade Act of 1974 as amended, as well as facilitating formal consultations with state 

and local governments regarding trade issues which may impact them. Each of these elements is 

discussed in turn below. 
VI. Trade Policy Development |195 

1. Public Outreach 

a. New Interactive Website and Weekly E-Newsletter 

Launched in June 2009, the new USTR website at http://www.ustr.gov was USTR’s first step to broaden 

the trade dialogue in 2009 through technology, and it daily helps to fulfill President Obama’s 

commitment to create a government that is transparent, participatory, and collaborative. 

Through the new USTR blog and through site pages on geographical areas, trade agreements, and key 

trade issues, the new http://www.ustr.gov shares updated information about USTR’s efforts to support job 

creation by opening markets and enforcing America’s rights in the rules-based global trading system. 

Interactive tools on the site allow the public to participate more fully in USTR’s day-to-day operation. 

People can share their questions through the Ask the Ambassador feature, and see answers on the blog. A 

new Share Your Stories feature serves as a venue for sharing how trade impacts and benefits daily life. 

The Interactive Map details Ambassador Ron Kirk’s travel as he works with trading partners to gain 

market access for U.S. farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, workers, and service providers. 

The public is invited to sign up on USTR’s homepage to receive USTR’s e-mail weekly newsletter, which 

highlights USTR’s efforts to open markets and enforce trade agreements around the world. This is a 

useful tool for small businesses and stakeholders outside Washington, DC to stay informed about trade 

policy developments and new market opportunities. 

b. Federal Register Notices Seeking Public Input/Comments Now Available Online for Inspection 

Throughout 2009, USTR has issued Federal Register Notices online to solicit public comment, and also 

held public hearings in Washington, DC regarding a wide array of trade policy initiatives. For the first 

time, public comments received in response to Federal Register Notices are now available for inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov. Some examples of trade policy initiatives for which USTR has 

sought public comment this year include the following: 

 Pending Free Trade Agreements: USTR received more than five hundred responses to requests 

for public comment on free trade agreements that have been negotiated with Colombia and the 

Republic of Korea. In its ongoing effort to identify and resolve outstanding issues related to the 

pending FTAs, USTR sought comments on stakeholders' views on the FTAs. The Federal 

Register Notices, published on July 27 for the South Korea FTA and July 29 for the Colombia 

FTA, provided an opportunity for the Administration to hear from the public. 

 TransPacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement: The United States intends to enter into 

negotiations on a TPP trade agreement with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based 

regional agreement. USTR is seeking public comments on all elements of the agreement in order 

to develop U.S. negotiating positions. 

 New Trade Enforcement Efforts: As part of the Obama Administration's trade enforcement 

efforts, USTR unveiled new enforcement tools to address standards-related measures that impede 

U.S. producers' ability to access foreign markets, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures 

restricting U.S. agricultural exports. USTR sought public comments to identify the most 

significant barriers faced by U.S. manufacturers and agricultural producers. 
VI. Trade Policy Development | 196 

 Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) Initiative: The U.S. International Trade Commission 

is soliciting public input and will hold public hearings as part of an SME Initiative aimed at 

increasing exports by small and medium-sized firms in the United States. 

c. Policy Initiatives to Increase Transparency 

USTR is also taking concrete steps in specific issue areas to increase transparency and augment 

opportunities for public input. For example: 

 Greater Transparency in Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Negotiations: USTR 

released a detailed summary of the state of the ACTA negotiations in April and again in 

November. These summaries set out the specific topics of discussion in the negotiations as the 

United States and its trading partners work toward an agreement to combat counterfeiting and 

piracy. 

 Inviting Public Participation in the Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Review: In July, USTR 

and the Department of State hosted a public hearing regarding the Administration’s review of the 

model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which was last updated in 2004. In addition to the 

hearing, USTR also welcomed comments from stakeholders and the public through a Federal 

Register Notice. USTR is taking these steps to ensure that the model BIT serves the public 

interest and U.S. economic policy.

d. Open Door Policy 

USTR officials meet frequently with a broad array of stakeholder groups representing business, labor, 

environment, consumers, state and local governments, NGOs, think tanks, universities and high schools 

to discuss specific trade policy issues, subject to availability and scheduling. These meetings are 

coordinated by IAPE and, where likely to be of broader interest, are noted in the weekly e-newsletter. 

2. The Trade Advisory Committee System 

The trade advisory committee system, established by the U.S. Congress in 1974, operates under the 

auspices of IAPE. The trade advisory committee system was created to ensure that U.S. trade policy and 

trade negotiating objectives adequately reflect U.S. public and private sector interests. The trade advisory 

committee system consists of 28 advisory committees, with a total membership of approximately 700 

advisors. It includes committees representing sectors of industry, agriculture, labor, environment, state, 

and local interests. IAPE manages the system, in cooperation with other agencies, including the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The trade advisory committees provide information and advice on U.S. negotiating objectives, the 

operation of trade agreements, and other matters arising in connection with the development, 

implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy. 

The system is arranged in three tiers: the President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 

Negotiations (ACTPN); five policy advisory committees dealing with environment, labor, agriculture, 

Africa, and state and local issues; and 22 technical advisory committees in the areas of industry and 

agriculture. In 2004, the committees were streamlined and consolidated to better reflect the composition 

of the U.S. economy, in response to recommendations from the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

(GAO). Additional information on the advisory committees can be found on the USTR website at 

http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Mission_of_the_USTR.html. 
VI. Trade Policy Development |197 

In 2007, the GAO recommended further steps USTR could take to provide greater transparency and 

accountability in the composition of the trade advisory committees, including reporting annually on how 

the committees meet the representation requirements of the relevant legislation, and clarifying which 

interests the members represent. Pursuant to these recommendations, a further description of committee 

representation is provided below, and the membership rosters of the committees with the organizations 

and interests represented are available online at http://www.ustr.gov under the heading “Who We Are.” 

In 2009, under the Obama Administration, USTR has made a further commitment to the reform of the 

advisory committee system and broadened the participation on committees to include more diversity of 

stakeholders, new voices, and fresh perspectives. Additionally, beginning in 2010 as the committees are 

rechartered, USTR is implementing White House guidelines prohibiting registered lobbyists from serving 

on committees. We believe the committees will benefit from an influx of new members who can bring 

new ideas to the table, particularly small businesses which could benefit from further access to 

international markets. 

Recommendations for candidates for committee membership are collected from a number of sources, 

including members of Congress, associations and organizations, publications, other federal agencies, 

responses to Federal Register Notices, and self-nominated individuals who have demonstrated an interest 

in, and knowledge of, U.S. trade policy. Membership selection is based on qualifications, geography, and 

the needs of the specific committee to maintain a balance of the perspectives represented. Committee 

members are required to have a security clearance in order to serve and have access to confidential trade 

documents on a secure encrypted website. Committees meet regularly in Washington, DC to provide 

input and advice to USTR and other agencies. Members pay for their own travel and other related 

expenses. 

a. President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN) 

The ACTPN consists of not more than 45 members who are broadly representative of the key economic 

sectors affected by trade. The President appoints ACTPN members for four-year terms not to exceed the 

duration of the charter. The ACTPN is the highest level committee in the system that examines U.S. trade 

policy and agreements from the broad context of the overall national interest. 

Members of ACTPN are appointed to represent a variety of interests including non-federal governments, 

labor, industry, agriculture, small business, service industries, retailers, and consumer interests. A current 

roster of members and the interests they represent is available on the USTR website. 

b. Policy Advisory Committees 

Members of the five policy advisory committees are appointed by USTR or in conjunction with other 

Cabinet officers. The Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC) and the Trade Advisory 

Committee for Africa (TACA) are appointed and managed solely by USTR. Those policy advisory 

committees managed jointly with the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency are, respectively, the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC), Labor 

Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy (LAC), and the Trade and Environment 

Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC). Each committee provides advice based upon the perspective of its 

specific area. A list of all the members of the Committees and the diverse interests they represent is 

available on the USTR website. 
VI. Trade Policy Development | 198 

APAC: 

The Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative appoint members jointly. APAC 

members are appointed to represent a broad spectrum of agricultural interests including the interests of 

farmers, processors, renderers, and retailers from diverse sectors of agriculture, including fruits and 

vegetables, livestock, dairy, and wine. Members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the U.S. Trade Representative. The Committee consists of approximately 35 members.

IGPAC: 

The IGPAC consists of approximately 35 members appointed from, and representative of, the various 

states and other non-federal governmental entities within the jurisdiction of the United States. These 

entities include, but are not limited to, the executive and legislative branches of state, county, and 

municipal governments. Members may hold elective or appointive office. Members are appointed by 

and serve at the discretion of the U.S. Trade Representative. 

LAC: 

The LAC consists of not more than 30 members from the U.S. labor community, appointed by the U.S. 

Trade Representative and the Secretary of Labor, acting jointly. Members represent unions from all 

sectors of the economy. Members are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the Secretary of Labor 

and the U.S. Trade Representative. 

TACA: 

TACA consists of not more than 30 members, including, but not limited to, representatives from industry, 

labor, investment, agriculture, services, non-profit development organizations, and other interests. The 

members of the Committee are appointed to be broadly representative of key sectors and groups with an 

interest in trade and development in sub-Saharan Africa, including non-profit organizations, producers, 

and retailers. Members of the committee are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the U.S. Trade 

Representative. 

TEPAC: 

TEPAC consists of not more than 35 members, including, but not limited to, representatives from 

environmental interest groups, industry (including the environmental technology and environmental 

services industries), agriculture, services, non-federal governments, and other interests. The Committee 

shall be broadly representative of key sectors and groups of the economy with an interest in trade and 

environmental policy issues. Members of the Committee are appointed by and serve at the discretion of 

the U.S. Trade Representative. 

c. Technical and Sectoral Committees 

The 22 technical and sectoral advisory committees are organized into two areas: agriculture and industry. 

Representatives are appointed jointly by the USTR and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce, 

respectively. Each sectoral or technical committee represents a specific sector or commodity group and 

provides specific technical advice concerning the effect that trade policy decisions may have on its sector 

or issue. 
VI. Trade Policy Development |199 

Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees (ATACs): 

There are six ATACs that focus on the following products: Animals and Animal Products; Fruits and 

Vegetables; Grains, Feed and Oilseeds; Processed Foods; Sweeteners and Sweetener Products; and 

Tobacco, Cotton, Peanuts, and Planting Seeds. Members of each Committee are appointed by and serve 

at the pleasure of the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative. Members must 

represent a U.S. entity with an interest in agricultural trade and should have expertise and knowledge of 

agricultural trade as it relates to policy and commodity-specific products. In appointing members to the 

committees, balance is achieved and maintained by assuring the members appointed represent industries 

and other entities across the range of interests which will be directly affected by the trade policies of 

concern to the committee (for example, farm producers, farm and commodity organizations, processors, 

traders, and consumers). Geographical balance on each committee will also be sought. A list of all the 

members of the committees and the diverse interests they represent is available on the USTR website. 

Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs): 

There are sixteen industry trade advisory committees (ITACs). These committees are: Aerospace 

Equipment (ITAC 1); Automotive Equipment and Capital Goods (ITAC 2); Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, 

Health Science Products and Services (ITAC 3); Consumer Goods (ITAC 4); Distribution Services (ITAC 

5); Energy and Energy Services (ITAC 6); Forest Products (ITAC 7); Information and Communication 

Technology Services and Electronic Commerce (ITAC 8); Non-Ferrous Metals and Building Products 

(ITAC 9); Services and Finance Industries (ITAC 10); Small and Minority Business (ITAC 11); Steel 

(ITAC 12); Textiles and Clothing (ITAC 13); Customs Matters and Trade Facilitation (ITAC 14); 

Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC 15); Standards and Technical Trade Barriers (ITAC 16). 

The ITAC Committee of Chairs was established to coordinate the work of the 16 ITAC committees and 

advise the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative concerning the trade matters of 

common interest to the sixteen ITACs. Members of this committee are the elected chairs from each of the 

sixteen ITACs. 

Members of the ITACs are appointed jointly by the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade 

Representative and serve at their discretion. Committee members should have knowledge and experience 

in their industry and represent a U.S. entity that has an interest in trade matters related to the sectors or 

subject matters of concern to the individual committees. In appointing members to the Committees, 

balance is achieved and maintained by assuring the members appointed represent industries and other 

U.S. entities across the range of interests which will be directly affected by the trade policies of concern 

to the Committee. A list of all the members of the Committees and the diverse interests they represent is 

available on the USTR website (for example committees include exporters, importers, producers, and 

both small and large businesses). 

3. State and Local Government Relations 

USTR maintains consultative procedures between federal trade officials and state and local governments. 

USTR’s Office of IAPE is designated as the “coordinator for state matters.” IAPE carries out the 

functions of informing the states, on an ongoing basis, of trade-related matters that directly relate to, or 

that may have a direct effect on, them. U.S. territories may also participate in this process. IAPE also 

serves as a liaison point in the Executive Branch for state and local government and federal agencies to 

transmit information to interested state and local governments, and relay advice and information from the 

states on trade-related matters. This is accomplished through a number of mechanisms. 
VI. Trade Policy Development | 200 

a. State Point of Contact System and IGPAC 

For day-to-day communications, pursuant to the NAFTA and Uruguay Round implementing legislation 

and Statements of Administrative Action, USTR created a State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) system. 

The Governor’s office in each state designates a single contact point to disseminate information received 

from USTR to relevant state and local offices and assist in relaying specific information and advice from 

the states to USTR on trade-related matters. 

The SPOC network ensures that state governments are promptly informed of Administration trade 

initiatives so their companies and workers may take full advantage of increased foreign market access and 

reduced trade barriers. It also enables USTR to consult with states and localities directly on trade matters 

which may affect them. SPOCs regularly receive USTR press releases, Federal Register Notices, and 

other pertinent information. USTR convenes a regular monthly conference call for SPOCs and members 

of the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (see description below) to keep state and local 

governments apprised of timely trade developments of interest. 

IGPAC makes recommendations to USTR and the Administration on trade policy matters from the 

perspective of state and local governments. In 2009, IGPAC was briefed and consulted on trade priorities 

of interest to states and localities, including: the WTO Doha Development Agenda with respect to the 

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and other matters; USTR’s Small and Medium Sized 

Enterprises initiative; enforcement issues; the Buy America provisions of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009; government procurement issues with Canada; the model Bilateral Investment 

Treaty (BIT) review; and other matters. IGPAC members were also invited to participate in monthly 

teleconference call briefings along with State Points of Contact. Specific issues of interest to IGPAC and 

SPOCs include new enforcement mechanisms for Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, the review of the model BITs, and foreign government challenges to state 

subsidies. 

b. Meetings of State and Local Associations and Local Chambers of Commerce 

USTR officials participate frequently in meetings of state and local government associations and local 

chambers to apprise them of relevant trade policy issues and solicit their views. For example, 

Ambassador Ron Kirk addressed a plenary meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures in 

San Diego, California in fall 2009, and taped a video address to state legislators. The Ambassador has 

met with individual governors, mayors, and state legislators to discuss trade issues of interest to states and 

localities, as well as hosting the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee at USTR. Ambassador 

Ron Kirk has also met with major local chambers of commerce to hear firsthand from local community 

officials and small businesses. USTR staff has met with the National Governors’ Association, regional 

governors’ associations, councils of state governments/state international development organizations, 

National Conference of State Legislatures, and other state organizations. USTR officials have addressed 

gatherings of state and local officials and port authorities as well as chambers of commerce around the 

country, such as the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones, and the Madison, Wisconsin 

International Trade Association. 

c. Consultations Regarding Specific Trade Issues 

USTR initiates consultations with particular states and localities on issues arising under the WTO and 

other U.S. trade agreements and frequently responds to requests for information from state and local 

governments. Topics of interest included the application of the WTO Government Procurement 

Agreement (GPA) and Buy America provisions under the Recovery Act, General Agreement on Trade in 

Services issues, the review of the model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), enforcement of trade 
VI. Trade Policy Development |201 

agreements, NAFTA trucking issues, and consultations with individual states regarding specific antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. 

C. Policy Coordination and Freedom of Information Act 

The U.S. Trade Representative has primary responsibility, with the advice of the interagency trade policy 

organization, for developing and coordinating the implementation of U.S. trade policy, including on 

commodity matters (for example coffee and rubber) and, to the extent they are related to trade, direct 

investment matters. Under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Congress established an interagency trade 

policy mechanism to assist with the implementation of these responsibilities. This organization, as it has 

evolved, consists of three tiers of committees that constitute the principal mechanism for developing and 

coordinating U.S. Government positions on international trade and trade-related investment issues. 

The Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) and the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), administered 

and chaired by USTR, are the subcabinet interagency trade policy coordination groups that are central to 

this process. The TPSC is the first line operating group, with representation at the senior civil servant 

level. Supporting the TPSC are more than 80 subcommittees responsible for specialized issues. The 

TPSC regularly seeks advice from the public on its policy decisions and negotiations through Federal

Register notices and public hearings. In 2009, the TPSC held public hearings on China’s Compliance 

with WTO Commitments (October 2, 2009) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Area (March 3, 

2009). The transcripts of these hearings are available in USTR’s Reading Room. 

Through the interagency process, USTR requests input and analysis from members of the appropriate 

TPSC subcommittee or task force. The conclusions and recommendations of this group are then 

presented to the full TPSC and serve as the basis for reaching interagency consensus. If agreement is not 

reached in the TPSC, or if particularly significant policy questions are being considered, issues are 

referred to the TPRG (Deputy USTR/Under Secretary level) or to the Deputies Committee of the National 

Security Council/National Economic Council. Issues of the greatest importance move the Principals 

Committee of the NSC/NEC for resolution by the Cabinet, with or without the President. 

Member agencies of the TPSC and the TPRG consist of the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, 

State, Treasury, Labor, Justice, Defense, Interior, Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the 

Council of Economic Advisers, the Council on Environmental Quality, the International Development 

Cooperation Agency, the National Economic Council, and the National Security Council. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission is a nonvoting member of the TPSC and an observer at TPRG meetings. 

Representatives of other agencies also may be invited to attend meetings depending on the specific issues 

discussed. 

Separate from the policy coordination function, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is subject to 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Details of the program are available on the USTR website at 

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/reading-room/freedom-information-act-foia. USTR receives approximately 

sixty FOIA requests a year and processes 54. This year the agency has made particular efforts at 

increased disclosure in light of the new Administration’s policies. 
ANNEX I
Annex I. U.S. Trade in 2009 

I. 2009 Overview 

U.S. trade1

 declined by 25 percent in 2009 to a value of $4.4 trillion.2 This decline reflected 

severe global recessionary conditions, with world GDP and world trade down 2.3 percent, and 

11.9 percent, respectively. For the United States, 2009 marked the first decline of overall trade 

since 2002, and the largest decline in decades. U.S. trade in goods and services declined by 24 

percent in 2009 – U.S. trade of goods alone declined by 28 percent and U.S. trade of services 

declined by 9 percent. The rate of reduction of U.S. imports of goods, services, and payments 

on investment (28 percent) was nearly 26 percent greater than the rate of reduction of U.S. 

exports of goods, services, and earnings on investment (22 percent). 

Although trade significantly declined in 2009, on a monthly basis, it appears that trade’s low 

point occurred in the first half of the year. U.S. exports of goods and services have increased, on 

a month over month basis, for the seven month period from May 2009 to November 2009, while 

U.S. imports of goods and services have increased each month for the last four months (August 

2009 to November 2009). Moreover, exports contributed 1.9 percentage points to the 

annualized growth rate of 4.0 percent in the second half of 2009. 

Even including the fall in U.S. trade in 2009, U.S. trade expansion was more rapid over the past 

four decades (1970 to 2009) than the growth of the overall U.S. economy, in both nominal and 

real terms. In nominal terms, trade has grown at an annual average rate of 9.3 percent per year 

since 1970, compared to a 6.9 percent annual average growth rate of U.S. gross domestic product 

(GDP) over the same period. In real terms, the average annual growth in trade was nearly double 

the pace of GDP growth, 5.5 percent versus 2.9 percent. Through 2009, the value of U.S. trade 

has increased over 3,100 percent since 1970, 132 percent since 1994 (the year before the start of 

the Uruguay Round implementation), and 32 percent since 2000 (figure 1).

3

 As a share of the 

value of GDP, trade was 31 percent in 2009 (figure 2), down from the record 40 percent of GDP 

in 2008 and below the 33 percent figure in 2000. However, this still represented an increase 

from 1994 (27 percent) and from 1970 (13 percent).4

 

 

1

 For the purposes of this Annex, “Trade” is defined as exports and imports of goods and services, and the receipt 

and payment of earnings on foreign investment. Earnings on foreign investment are considered trade because they 

are conceptually the payment made to foreign residents for the service rendered by the use of foreign capital. 

Beyond the overview section, however, this chapter deals with goods and services trade, excluding foreign 

investment earnings. All trade values are nominal unless otherwise indicated. 

2

 In this Annex, the full-year trade value for 2009 is an annualized estimate based on partial year data (January 1 to 

November 30, 2009). 

3

 Trade in goods and services alone has increased nearly 2,800 percent since 1970, 117 percent since 1994, and 30 

percent since 2000. 

4

 For goods and services, excluding investment earnings and payments, U.S. trade represented 24 percent of the 

value of GDP in 2009, down from the record 30 percent in 2008, and down from 26 percent in 2000, but was up 

from 22 percent in 1994, and 11 percent in 1970. 

The long-term growth in trade has occurred in both U.S. exports and imports, despite the decline 

in 2009. U.S. exports of goods and services (including investment earnings) in 2009 are 2,700 

percent greater than 1970, 127 percent greater than 1994, and 39 percent greater than 2000. U.S. 

imports of goods and services are 3,600 percent greater than 1970, 137 percent greater than 

1994, and 27 percent greater than 2000. 

The total deficit in goods and services trade (excluding earnings and payments on foreign 

investment) declined in 2009 by approximately $335 billion, from $696 billion in 2008 to $361 

billion. This was the third consecutive year that the deficit declined. As a share of GDP, the 

deficit declined from 4.8 percent of GDP in 2008 to approximately 2.5 percent of GDP in 2009. 

The U.S. deficit in goods trade alone decreased by $344 billion from $840 billion in 2008 (5.8 

percent of GDP) to $496 billion in 2009 (3.5 percent of GDP), while the services trade surplus 

decreased by $9 billion from $144 billion in 2008 (1.0 percent of GDP) to $135 billion in 2009 

(1.0 percent of GDP). The deficit in petroleum decreased by 51 percent in 2009, but still 

accounted for 53 percent of the total goods and services deficit. 

II. Goods Trade 

A. Export Growth 

As with total trade, goods exports also declined significantly in 2009. U.S. goods exports 

decreased by 20 percent in 2009, as compared to the 12 percent increase in the preceding year 

(table 1 and figure 3). Manufacturing exports, which accounted for over 80 percent of total 

goods exports, were down 19 percent in 2009, while agriculture exports, which accounted for 10 

percent of total goods exports, decreased 17 percent in 2009. High-technology exports, a subset 

of manufacturing exports, accounted for 23 percent of total goods exports and were down 11 

percent in 2009. U.S. goods exports decreased for every major end-use category in 2009, with 

the largest declines in the autos and auto parts category, down 36 percent, and in the industrial 

supplies and materials category, down 27 percent. 

Although U.S. goods exports in 2009 were down compared to 2008, 2009 exports were up 32 

percent compared to 2000, and up 103 percent since 1994. U.S. agriculture exports grew faster 

than manufacturing exports and high technology exports in both timeframes; U.S. agriculture 

exports were up 88 percent since 2000 and up 114 percent since 1994. Of the major end-use 

categories, exports of foods, feeds, and beverages (up 90 percent) led growth in the 2000 to 2009 

timeframe over both the consumer goods category (up 66 percent) and industrial supplies and 

materials (up 65 percent). From 1994 to 2009, this trend was reversed with exports of consumer 

goods (up 147 percent) leading industrial supplies and materials (up 135 percent) and foods, 

feed, and beverages (up 117 percent). Of the $516 billion increase in goods exports since 1994, 

capital goods accounted for 35 percent, industrial supplies and materials accounted for 32 

percent of the increase, and consumer goods accounted for 17 percent. 
Table 1 

U.S. Goods Exports

Exports:

1994 2000 2008 2009* 08-09* 00-09* 94-09*

Billions of Dollars Percent Changes

Total (BOP basis) 502.9 772.0 1,277.0 1,018.7 -20.2% 32.0% 102.6%

 Food, feeds, and beverages 42.0 47.9 108.3 91.0 -16.0% 90.1% 116.9%

 Industrial supplies and materials 121.4 172.6 388.0 284.8 -26.6% 65.0% 134.6%

 Capital goods, except autos 205.0 356.9 457.7 384.6 -16.0% 7.7% 87.6%

 Autos and auto parts 57.8 80.4 121.5 77.6 -36.1% -3.5% 34.2%

 Consumer goods 60.0 89.4 161.3 148.4 -8.0% 66.0% 147.3%

 Other 26.5 34.8 50.7 44.1 -13.0% 26.8% 66.4%

 Addendum: Agriculture 45.9 52.1 118.2 98.1 -17.0% 88.4% 113.6%

 Addendum: Manufacturing 431.1 689.5 1,038.6 839.8 -19.1% 21.8% 94.8%

 Addendum: High Technology 120.7 227.4 270.1 239.5 -11.3% 5.3% 98.4%

* Annualized based on January-November 2009 data. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Balance of Payments basis for total, Census basis for sectors.

Table 2 

U.S. Goods Exports to Selected Countries/Regions

Exports from:

1994 2000 2008 2009* 08-09* 00-09* 94-09*

Billions of Dollars Percent Changes

European Union (EU27) 110.1 168.5 271.8 217.6 -20.0% 29.1% 97.7%

Canada 114.4 178.9 261.2 199.4 -23.6% 11.4% 74.2%

Asian Pacific Rim, except Japan 

and China 85.0 121.5 161.1 127.9 -20.6% 5.3% 50.5%

Mexico 50.8 111.3 151.2 125.6 -16.9% 12.8% 147.1%

Latin America, except Mexico 41.7 59.3 136.9 106.7 -22.1% 80.0% 155.8%

China 9.3 16.2 69.7 66.1 -5.3% 308.1% 611.6%

Japan 53.5 64.9 65.1 49.7 -23.7% -23.5% -7.1%

Addendum: Industrial 

Countries** 294.0 435.2 637.5 500.8 -21.4% 15.1% 70.3%

Addendum: Developing 

Countries** 218.6 346.7 650.0 527.7 -18.8% 52.2% 141.4%

* Annualized based on January-November 2009 data. 

** As defined by the International Monetary Fund. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census basis.

In 2009, U.S. goods exports declined to all major markets, ranging from a low of a 5.3 percent 

drop in exports to China to a high of a 23.7 percent drop in exports to Japan (table 2). Other 

markets to which U.S. goods exports declined by over 20 percent include Canada, Latin America 

(excluding Mexico), the Asian Pacific Rim (excluding Japan and China), and the European 

Union. U.S. goods exports declined by 21 percent to industrial countries and by 19 percent to 

developing countries. Since 1994, U.S. goods exports to developing countries grew twice as fast 

as U.S. goods exports to industrial countries, 141 percent compared to 70 percent. Due to this 

long-term higher growth difference, the share of U.S. goods exports to developing countries have 

grown from 43 percent in 1994 to 51 percent in 2009. 

B. Import Growth 

U.S. goods imports declined by 28 percent in 2009 (table 3 and figure 4), in contrast to an 8 

percent increase from 2007 to 2008. Manufacturing imports, accounting for 77 

percent of total goods imports, decreased by 22 percent in 2009. High-technology imports, 

accounting for 19 percent of total goods imports, decreased by 11 percent, while agriculture 

imports, accounting for 5 percent of total goods imports, decreased by 12 percent in 2009. 

Similar to U.S. goods exports, U.S. goods imports decreased for every 
Table 3 

U.S. Goods Imports

Imports:

1994 2000 2008 2009* 08-09* 00-09* 94-09*

Billions of Dollars Percent Changes

Total (BOP basis) 668.7 1,226.7 2,117.2 1,514.6 -28.5% 23.5% 126.5%

 Food, feeds, and beverages 31.0 46.0 89.0 81.2 -8.7% 76.7% 162.4%

 Industrial supplies and materials 162.1 299.0 779.5 438.4 -43.8% 46.6% 170.4%

 Capital goods, except autos 184.4 347.0 453.7 361.4 -20.4% 4.1% 96.0%

 Autos and auto parts 118.3 195.9 233.8 152.2 -34.9% -22.3% 28.7%

 Consumer goods 146.3 281.8 481.6 423.1 -12.1% 50.1% 189.3%

 Other 21.3 48.3 66.0 57.1 -13.5% 18.2% 168.6%

 Addendum: Agriculture 26.0 39.2 80.7 71.3 -11.6% 82.1% 174.9%

 Addendum: Manufacturing 557.3 1,013.5 1,490.4 1,159.3 -22.2% 14.4% 108.0%

 Addendum: High Technology 98.1 222.1 331.2 293.2 -11.5% 32.0% 198.8%

* Annualized based on January-November 2009 data. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Balance of Payments basis for total, Census basis for sectors.

Table 4 

U.S. Goods Imports from Selected Countries/Regions

Imports from:

1994 2000 2008 2009* 08-09* 00-09* 94-09*

Billions of Dollars Percent Changes

European Union (EU27) 121.9 227.6 367.6 275.9 -25.0% 21.2% 126.3%

Canada 128.4 230.8 339.5 216.1 -36.3% -6.4% 68.3%

China 38.8 100.0 337.8 291.6 -13.7% 191.5% 651.7%

Mexico 49.5 135.9 215.9 170.8 -20.9% 25.7% 245.1%

Asian Pacific Rim, except Japan 

and China 103.2 171.5 176.9 137.5 -22.3% -19.8% 33.3%

Latin America, except Mexico 38.5 73.3 160.0 103.9 -35.1% 41.6% 170.0%

Japan 119.2 146.5 139.3 93.0 -33.3% -36.5% -22.0%

Addendum: Industrial 

Countries** 380.7 622.3 872.6 607.4 -30.4% -2.4% 59.5%

Addendum: Developing 

Countries** 282.5 595.7 1,231.1 904.1 -26.6% 51.8% 220.0%

*Annualized based on January-November 2009 data. 

**As defined by the International Monetary Fund. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census basis.

major end-use category in 2009, with declines ranging between 9 percent and 44 percent. The 

category with the largest import decline was industrial supplies and materials, down 

44 percent, primarily due to the decline in petroleum imports in 2009 (down 7 percent on a 

volume basis, with oil prices also down 56 percent). In fact, the decrease in petroleum imports 

accounted for roughly 35 percent of the overall decline in U.S. goods imports in 2009. 

Despite the significant decline in U.S. goods imports in 2009, U.S. goods imports have increased 

24 percent since 2000, and 127 percent since 1994. U.S. agriculture imports grew nearly seven 

times faster than manufacturing imports since 2000, but only grew 62 percent faster than 

manufacturing imports since 1994. For the major end-use categories, U.S. imports of foods, 

feeds, and beverages led growth since 2000 (up 77 percent), followed by consumer goods (up 50 

percent) and industrial supplies and materials (up 44 percent). In contrast, since 1994, U.S. 

imports of consumer goods were up 189 percent, industrial supplies and materials were up 170 

percent, and foods, feeds, and beverages were up 162 percent. 

On a major country/region basis, the decrease in U.S. goods imports ranged from 14 percent to 

36 percent in 2009 (table 4). The decline in U.S. goods imports from Canada, Latin America 

(excluding Mexico), and Japan all exceeded 30 percent in 2009. U.S. goods imports from 

industrial countries declined by 30 percent in 2009, somewhat greater than the 26 percent decline 
in goods imports from developing countries. Since 1994, U.S. goods imports from developing 

countries grew by a rate of more than triple than U.S. goods imports from industrial countries 

(220 percent compared with 60 percent). Accordingly, the share of U.S. goods imports from 

developing countries has increased from 43 percent of total goods imports in 1994 to 60 percent 

in 2009. 

III. Services Trade 

A. Export Growth 

U.S. exports of services declined 8 percent in 2009 to $504 billion. This rate of decline was 

more than half the rate of decline for goods exports in 2009 (down 20 percent). Despite this 

decline, U.S. services exports have grown 69 percent since 2000 and 152 percent since 1994

(table 5 and figure 5). U.S. services exports accounted for 33 percent of the level of U.S. goods 

and services exports in 2009. 

Exports in nearly all of the major services categories declined in 2009, led by the categories of 

other transportation (down 25 percent), passenger fares (down 14 percent), and travel (down 15 

percent). Only the military sales transfers and government categories showed increases in 2009, 

though these exports together accounted for only 5 percent of total U.S. goods exports in 2009. 

Since 2000, services export growth has been led by other private services (up 112 percent), and 

royalties and licensing fees (up 92 percent). Similarly, these two categories exhibited the 

strongest export growth since 1994 (other private services up 276 percent and royalties and 

licensing fees up 211 percent). Of the $304 billion increase in U.S. services exports between 

1994 and 2009, the other private services category accounted for 55 percent of the increase, 

while the royalties and licensing fees category accounted for 19 percent. 

Detailed sectoral breakdowns for exports in the other private services category as well as exports 

to countries/regions are available only through 2008. 

In 2008, 32 percent of U.S. exports of other private services were to business-related parties (to a 

foreign parent or affiliate). The largest categories for U.S. exports of other private services to 

related and unrelated parties in 2008 were: business, professional and technical services ($114 

billion); financial services ($60 billion); and education ($18 billion). The business, professional 

and technical services category was led by management and consulting services ($27 billon), 

research and development and testing services ($17 billion), computer and information services 

($13 billion), and the installation, maintenance, and repair of equipment ($10 billion). 

 

The United Kingdom was the largest purchaser of U.S. private services exports in 2008, 

accounting for 12 percent ($63 billion) of total U.S. private services exports. The next fourlargest purchasers of U.S. private services exports in 2008 were: Canada ($46 billion), Japan 

($41 billion), Germany ($28 billion), and Mexico ($24 billion). Regionally, in 2008, the United 

States exported $196 billion to the EU, $130 billion to the Asia/Pacific Region ($56 billion 

excluding Japan and China), $70 billion to NAFTA countries, and $40 billion to Latin America 

(excluding Mexico). 
Table 5 

U.S. Services Exports

Exports:

1994 2000 2008 2009* 08-09* 00-09* 94-09*

Billions of Dollars Percent Changes

Total (BOP basis) 200.4 298.6 549.6 504.0 -8.3% 68.8% 151.5%

 Travel 58.4 82.4 110.1 93.5 -15.1% 13.5% 60.1%

 Passenger Fares 17.0 20.7 31.6 27.3 -13.8% 31.8% 60.4%

 Other Transportation 23.8 29.8 58.9 44.0 -25.4% 47.6% 85.1%

 Royalties and Licensing Fees 26.7 43.2 91.6 82.9 -9.5% 91.8% 210.5%

 Other Private Services 60.8 107.9 233.5 229.1 -1.9% 112.3% 276.5%

 Transfers under U.S. Military 

 Sales Contracts 12.8 13.8 22.6 26.0 15.2% 88.5% 103.3%

 U.S. Government Miscellaneous

 Services 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.3 6.9% 69.3% 50.0%

*Annualized based on January-November 2009 data. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Balance of Payments basis.
B. Import Growth

U.S. services imports decreased in 2009 by 9 percent to $369 billon (table 6, figure 6). This 

decline was slightly greater than the 8 percent decline in services exports, but was one-third the 

rate of decline in goods imports (down 28 percent). The other transportation and passenger fees 

categories showed the largest declines in 2009, down 26 percent and 22 percent, respectively. 

U.S. services imports accounted for roughly 20 percent of the level of U.S. goods and services 

imports in 2009. 

Despite the decline in 2009, U.S. services imports have grown both between 2000 and 2009 (up 

65 percent) and between 1994 and 2009 (up 177 percent). Since 2000, import growth has been 

led by direct defense expenditures (up 164 percent) and other private services (up 153 percent). 

Since 1994, U.S. imports have grown over 300 percent for both the other private services 

category and the royalties and licensing fees category. Of the $236 billion growth in imports 

since 1994, the other private services category accounted for 52 percent of the increase and the 

other transportation category accounted for 12 percent of the increase. 

As with exports, detailed sectoral breakdowns for imports of other private services are available 

only through 2008. 

In 2008, 40 percent of U.S. imports of other private services were from business related parties 

(from a foreign parent or affiliate). The largest categories for U.S. imports of other private 

services from related and unrelated parties in 2008 were: business professional and technical 

services ($76 billion); insurance services ($43 billion); and financial services ($19 billion). The 

business, professional and technical services category were led by management, and consulting 

services ($22 billion), computer and information services ($16 billion), and research, 

development, and testing services ($15 billion). 

The United Kingdom remained our largest supplier of private services, accounting for 13 percent 

of total U.S. private services imports in 2008. The top five suppliers of U.S. private services 

imports in 2008 were: the United Kingdom ($44 billion), Germany ($26 billion), Japan ($24 

billion), Canada ($24 billion), and Bermuda ($17 billion). 

Regionally, the U.S. imported $139 billion of services from the EU in 2008, $91 billion from the 

Asia/Pacific region ($39 billion excluding Japan and China), $40 billion from NAFTA, and $21 

billion from Latin America (excluding Mexico). 
Table 6 

U.S. Services Imports

Imports:

1994 2000 2008 2009* 08-09* 00-09* 94-09*

Billions of Dollars Percent Changes

Total (BOP basis) 133.1 223.7 405.3 368.8 -9.0% 64.8% 177.2%

 Travel 43.8 64.7 79.7 72.4 -9.2% 11.9% 65.4%

 Passenger Fares 13.1 24.3 32.6 25.5 -21.8% 5.0% 95.2%

 Other Transportation 26.0 41.4 72.1 53.4 -26.0% 28.9% 105.3%

 Royalties and Licensing Fees 5.9 16.5 26.6 24.1 -9.3% 46.6% 312.4%

 Other Private Services 31.6 60.5 153.3 153.2 0.0% 153.2% 385.5%

 Direct Defense Expenditures 10.2 13.5 36.5 35.5 -2.6% 163.5% 247.5%

 U.S. Government Miscellaneous

 Services 2.6 2.9 4.5 4.7 5.6% 63.6% 84.3%

*Annualized based on January-November 2009 data. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Balance of Payments basis.
IV. The U.S. Trade Deficit 

In 2009, the U.S. goods and services deficit decreased by nearly one-half ($335 billion) to a level 

of $361 billion (table 7), the third consecutive year the deficit declined. This was the lowest 

goods and services trade deficit since 1999. The U.S. deficit in goods trade alone decreased by 

$344 billion to $496 billion in 2009, while the U.S. surplus in services trade decreased by $9 

billion to $135 billion. 

As a share of U.S. GDP, the goods and services trade deficit declined from 4.8 percent of GDP in 

2008 to 2.5 percent of GDP in 2009 (table 8). The goods trade deficit declined from 5.8 percent 

of GDP in 2008 to 3.5 percent of GDP in 2009, while the services trade surplus stayed at 1.0 

percent of GDP in both 2008 and 2009. 

The regional distribution of the goods trade deficit for 1994, 2000, and 2008 to 2009 is shown in 

table 9. 
Table 7 

U.S. Trade Balances with the World 

Balance:

1994 2000 2008 2009*

Billions of Dollars

Goods and Services (BOP Basis) -98.5 -379.8 -695.9 -360.8

Goods (BOP Basis) -165.8 -454.7 -840.3 -496.0

Services (BOP Basis) 67.3 74.9 144.3 135.2

* Annualized based on January-November 2009 data 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 
Table 8 

U.S. Trade Balances as a Share of GDP 

Share of GDP:

1994 2000 2008 2009*

Percents

Goods and Services (BOP Basis) -1.4 -3.8 -4.8 -2.5

Goods (BOP Basis) -2.3 -4.6 -5.8 -3.5

Services (BOP Basis) 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0

* Annualized based on January-November 2009 data 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 

Table 9 

U.S. Goods Trade Balances with Selected Countries/Regions 

Balance:

1994 2000 2008 2009*

Billions of Dollars

Canada -14.0 -51.9 -78.3 -16.7

European Union (EU27) -11.8 -59.1 -95.8 -58.3

Japan -65.7 -81.6 -74.1 -43.3

Mexico 1.4 -24.6 -64.7 -45.2

China -29.5 -83.8 -268.0 -225.5

Asian Pacific Rim, except Japan and 

China -18.2 -50.0 -15.8 -9.6

Latin America, except Mexico 3.2 -14.1 -23.0 2.9

Addendum: Industrial Countries** -86.7 -187.1 -235.1 -106.6

Addendum: Developing Countries** -63.9 -249.0 -581.1 -376.4

* Annualized based on January-November 2009 data 

** As defined by the International Monetary Fund 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 

ANNEX II
Background Information on the WTO 

Doha Development Agenda 

1. Doha Ministerial Declaration 

2. Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 

3. Doha Declaration on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns 

4. Doha Work Programme 

5. Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement 

6. Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 

7. U.S. Submissions to the WTO in Support of the Doha Development Agenda 

8. WTO Affinity Groups in the DDA 

Institutional Issues

1. Membership of the WTO 

2. 2010-11 Budget for the WTO Secretariat 

3. 2010 WTO Budget Contributions 

4. Waivers Currently in Force 

5. WTO Secretariat Personnel Statistics 

6. WTO Accession Application and Status 

7. Indicative List of Governmental and Non-Governmental Panelists 

8. Appellate Body Membership 

9. Where to Find More Information on the WTO 
WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1

20 November 2001

(01-5859)

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE

Fourth Session

Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001

MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 

Adopted on 14 November 2001

1. The multilateral trading system embodied in the World Trade Organization has 

contributed significantly to economic growth, development and employment throughout the past 

fifty years. We are determined, particularly in the light of the global economic slowdown, to 

maintain the process of reform and liberalization of trade policies, thus ensuring that the system 

plays its full part in promoting recovery, growth and development. We therefore strongly 

reaffirm the principles and objectives set out in the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World 

Trade Organization, and pledge to reject the use of protectionism. 

2. International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and 

the alleviation of poverty. We recognize the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased 

opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. The majority of 

WTO Members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart 

of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration. Recalling the Preamble to the Marrakesh 

Agreement, we shall continue to make positive efforts designed to ensure that developing 

countries, and especially the least-developed among them, secure a share in the growth of world 

trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development. In this context, enhanced 

market access, balanced rules, and well targeted, sustainably financed technical assistance and 

capacity-building programmes have important roles to play. 

3. We recognize the particular vulnerability of the least-developed countries and the special 

structural difficulties they face in the global economy. We are committed to addressing the 

marginalization of least-developed countries in international trade and to improving their 

effective participation in the multilateral trading system. We recall the commitments made by 

Ministers at our meetings in Marrakesh, Singapore and Geneva, and by the international 

community at the Third UN Conference on Least-Developed Countries in Brussels, to help leastdeveloped countries secure beneficial and meaningful integration into the multilateral trading 

system and the global economy. We are determined that the WTO will play its part in building 

effectively on these commitments under the Work Programme we are establishing. 

4. We stress our commitment to the WTO as the unique forum for global trade rule-making 

and liberalization, while also recognizing that regional trade agreements can play an important 

role in promoting the liberalization and expansion of trade and in fostering development. 
5. We are aware that the challenges Members face in a rapidly changing international 

environment cannot be addressed through measures taken in the trade field alone. We shall 

continue to work with the Bretton Woods institutions for greater coherence in global economic 

policy-making.

6. We strongly reaffirm our commitment to the objective of sustainable development, as 

stated in the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement. We are convinced that the aims of 

upholding and safeguarding an open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system, and 

acting for the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development can 

and must be mutually supportive. We take note of the efforts by Members to conduct national 

environmental assessments of trade policies on a voluntary basis. We recognize that under WTO 

rules no country should be prevented from taking measures for the protection of human, animal or 

plant life or health, or of the environment at the levels it considers appropriate, subject to the 

requirement that they are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or 

unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised 

restriction on international trade, and are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the WTO 

Agreements. We welcome the WTO ́s continued cooperation with UNEP and other intergovernmental environmental organizations. We encourage efforts to promote cooperation 

between the WTO and relevant international environmental and developmental organizations, 

especially in the lead-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in 

Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 2002. 

7. We reaffirm the right of Members under the General Agreement on Trade in Services to 

regulate, and to introduce new regulations on, the supply of services. 

8. We reaffirm our declaration made at the Singapore Ministerial Conference regarding 

internationally recognized core labour standards. We take note of work under way in the 

International Labour Organization (ILO) on the social dimension of globalization. 

9. We note with particular satisfaction that this Conference has completed the WTO 

accession procedures for China and Chinese Taipei. We also welcome the accession as new 

Members, since our last Session, of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Jordan, Lithuania, Moldova and 

Oman, and note the extensive market-access commitments already made by these countries on 

accession. These accessions will greatly strengthen the multilateral trading system, as will those 

of the 28 countries now negotiating their accession. We therefore attach great importance to 

concluding accession proceedings as quickly as possible. In particular, we are committed to 

accelerating the accession of least-developed countries.

10. Recognizing the challenges posed by an expanding WTO membership, we confirm our 

collective responsibility to ensure internal transparency and the effective participation of all 

Members. While emphasizing the intergovernmental character of the organization, we are 

committed to making the WTO’s operations more transparent, including through more effective 

and prompt dissemination of information, and to improve dialogue with the public. We shall 

therefore at the national and multilateral levels continue to promote a better public understanding 

of the WTO and to communicate the benefits of a liberal, rules-based multilateral trading system. 

11. In view of these considerations, we hereby agree to undertake the broad and balanced 

Work Programme set out below. This incorporates both an expanded negotiating agenda and 

other important decisions and activities necessary to address the challenges facing the multilateral 

trading system. 
WORK PROGRAMME

IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS

12. We attach the utmost importance to the implementation-related issues and concerns 

raised by Members and are determined to find appropriate solutions to them. In this connection, 

and having regard to the General Council Decisions of 3 May and 15 December 2000, we further 

adopt the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns in document 

WT/MIN(01)/17 to address a number of implementation problems faced by Members. We agree 

that negotiations on outstanding implementation issues shall be an integral part of the Work 

Programme we are establishing, and that agreements reached at an early stage in these 

negotiations shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 47 below. In this 

regard, we shall proceed as follows: (a) where we provide a specific negotiating mandate in this 

Declaration, the relevant implementation issues shall be addressed under that mandate; (b) the 

other outstanding implementation issues shall be addressed as a matter of priority by the relevant 

WTO bodies, which shall report to the Trade Negotiations Committee, established under 

paragraph 46 below, by the end of 2002 for appropriate action.

AGRICULTURE

13. We recognize the work already undertaken in the negotiations initiated in early 2000 

under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, including the large number of negotiating 

proposals submitted on behalf of a total of 121 Members. We recall the long-term objective 

referred to in the Agreement to establish a fair and market-oriented trading system through a 

programme of fundamental reform encompassing strengthened rules and specific commitments 

on support and protection in order to correct and prevent restrictions and distortions in world 

agricultural markets. We reconfirm our commitment to this programme. Building on the work 

carried out to date and without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations we commit ourselves 

to comprehensive negotiations aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions 

of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in tradedistorting domestic support. We agree that special and differential treatment for developing 

countries shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the 

Schedules of concessions and commitments and as appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be 

negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively 

take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development. We take 

note of the non-trade concerns reflected in the negotiating proposals submitted by Members and 

confirm that non-trade concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations as provided for in 

the Agreement on Agriculture. 

14. Modalities for the further commitments, including provisions for special and differential 

treatment, shall be established no later than 31 March 2003. Participants shall submit their 

comprehensive draft Schedules based on these modalities no later than the date of the Fifth 

Session of the Ministerial Conference. The negotiations, including with respect to rules and 

disciplines and related legal texts, shall be concluded as part and at the date of conclusion of the 

negotiating agenda as a whole. 
SERVICES

15. The negotiations on trade in services shall be conducted with a view to promoting the 

economic growth of all trading partners and the development of developing and least-developed 

countries. We recognize the work already undertaken in the negotiations, initiated in January 

2000 under Article XIX of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and the large number of 

proposals submitted by Members on a wide range of sectors and several horizontal issues, as well 

as on movement of natural persons. We reaffirm the Guidelines and Procedures for the 

Negotiations adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 28 March 2001 as the basis for 

continuing the negotiations, with a view to achieving the objectives of the General Agreement on 

Trade in Services, as stipulated in the Preamble, Article IV and Article XIX of that Agreement. 

Participants shall submit initial requests for specific commitments by 30 June 2002 and initial 

offers by 31 March 2003.

MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

16. We agree to negotiations which shall aim, by modalities to be agreed, to reduce or as 

appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, 

and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular on products of export interest to 

developing countries. Product coverage shall be comprehensive and without a priori exclusions. 

The negotiations shall take fully into account the special needs and interests of developing and 

least-developed country participants, including through less than full reciprocity in reduction 

commitments, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 

and the provisions cited in paragraph 50 below. To this end, the modalities to be agreed will 

include appropriate studies and capacity-building measures to assist least-developed countries to 

participate effectively in the negotiations. 

TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

17. We stress the importance we attach to implementation and interpretation of the 

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) in a 

manner supportive of public health, by promoting both access to existing medicines and research 

and development into new medicines and, in this connection, are adopting a separate Declaration. 

18. With a view to completing the work started in the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) on the implementation of Article 23.4, we agree 

to negotiate the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of 

geographical indications for wines and spirits by the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. 

We note that issues related to the extension of the protection of geographical indications provided 

for in Article 23 to products other than wines and spirits will be addressed in the Council for 

TRIPS pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Declaration. 

19. We instruct the Council for TRIPS, in pursuing its work programme including under the 

review of Article 27.3(b), the review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement under 

Article 71.1 and the work foreseen pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Declaration, to examine, inter 

alia, the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, 

the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, and other relevant new developments raised 

by Members pursuant to Article 71.1. In undertaking this work, the TRIPS Council shall be 
guided by the objectives and principles set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement and 

shall take fully into account the development dimension. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADE AND INVESTMENT

20. Recognizing the case for a multilateral framework to secure transparent, stable and 

predictable conditions for long-term cross-border investment, particularly foreign direct 

investment, that will contribute to the expansion of trade, and the need for enhanced technical 

assistance and capacity-building in this area as referred to in paragraph 21, we agree that 

negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the basis of a 

decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that Session on modalities of negotiations. 

21. We recognize the needs of developing and least-developed countries for enhanced 

support for technical assistance and capacity building in this area, including policy analysis and 

development so that they may better evaluate the implications of closer multilateral cooperation 

for their development policies and objectives, and human and institutional development. To this 

end, we shall work in cooperation with other relevant intergovernmental organisations, including 

UNCTAD, and through appropriate regional and bilateral channels, to provide strengthened and 

adequately resourced assistance to respond to these needs. 

22. In the period until the Fifth Session, further work in the Working Group on the 

Relationship Between Trade and Investment will focus on the clarification of: scope and 

definition; transparency; non-discrimination; modalities for pre-establishment commitments 

based on a GATS-type, positive list approach; development provisions; exceptions and balanceof-payments safeguards; consultation and the settlement of disputes between Members. Any 

framework should reflect in a balanced manner the interests of home and host countries, and take 

due account of the development policies and objectives of host governments as well as their right 

to regulate in the public interest. The special development, trade and financial needs of 

developing and least-developed countries should be taken into account as an integral part of any 

framework, which should enable Members to undertake obligations and commitments 

commensurate with their individual needs and circumstances. Due regard should be paid to other 

relevant WTO provisions. Account should be taken, as appropriate, of existing bilateral and 

regional arrangements on investment. 

INTERACTION BETWEEN TRADE AND COMPETITION POLICY

23. Recognizing the case for a multilateral framework to enhance the contribution of 

competition policy to international trade and development, and the need for enhanced technical 

assistance and capacity-building in this area as referred to in paragraph 24, we agree that 

negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the basis of a 

decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that Session on modalities of negotiations. 

24. We recognize the needs of developing and least-developed countries for enhanced 

support for technical assistance and capacity building in this area, including policy analysis and 

development so that they may better evaluate the implications of closer multilateral cooperation 

for their development policies and objectives, and human and institutional development. To this 

end, we shall work in cooperation with other relevant intergovernmental organisations, including 

UNCTAD, and through appropriate regional and bilateral channels, to provide strengthened and 

adequately resourced assistance to respond to these needs. 
25. In the period until the Fifth Session, further work in the Working Group on the 

Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy will focus on the clarification of: core 

principles, including transparency, non-discrimination and procedural fairness, and provisions on 

hardcore cartels; modalities for voluntary cooperation; and support for progressive 

reinforcement of competition institutions in developing countries through capacity building. Full 

account shall be taken of the needs of developing and least-developed country participants and 

appropriate flexibility provided to address them. 

TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

26. Recognizing the case for a multilateral agreement on transparency in government 

procurement and the need for enhanced technical assistance and capacity building in this area, we 

agree that negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the 

basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that Session on modalities of 

negotiations. These negotiations will build on the progress made in the Working Group on 

Transparency in Government Procurement by that time and take into account participants' 

development priorities, especially those of least-developed country participants. Negotiations 

shall be limited to the transparency aspects and therefore will not restrict the scope for countries 

to give preferences to domestic supplies and suppliers. We commit ourselves to ensuring 

adequate technical assistance and support for capacity building both during the negotiations and 

after their conclusion. 

TRADE FACILITATION

27. Recognizing the case for further expediting the movement, release and clearance of 

goods, including goods in transit, and the need for enhanced technical assistance and capacity 

building in this area, we agree that negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the 

Ministerial Conference on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that 

Session on modalities of negotiations. In the period until the Fifth Session, the Council for Trade 

in Goods shall review and as appropriate, clarify and improve relevant aspects of Articles V, VIII 

and X of the GATT 1994 and identify the trade facilitation needs and priorities of Members, in 

particular developing and least-developed countries. We commit ourselves to ensuring adequate 

technical assistance and support for capacity building in this area. 

WTO RULES

28. In the light of experience and of the increasing application of these instruments by 

Members, we agree to negotiations aimed at clarifying and improving disciplines under the 

Agreements on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures, while preserving the basic concepts, principles and effectiveness of 

these Agreements and their instruments and objectives, and taking into account the needs of 

developing and least-developed participants. In the initial phase of the negotiations, participants 

will indicate the provisions, including disciplines on trade distorting practices, that they seek to 

clarify and improve in the subsequent phase. In the context of these negotiations, participants 

shall also aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account 

the importance of this sector to developing countries. We note that fisheries subsidies are also 

referred to in paragraph 31. 
29. We also agree to negotiations aimed at clarifying and improving disciplines and 

procedures under the existing WTO provisions applying to regional trade agreements. The 

negotiations shall take into account the developmental aspects of regional trade agreements. 

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING

30. We agree to negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement 

Understanding. The negotiations should be based on the work done thus far as well as any 

additional proposals by Members, and aim to agree on improvements and clarifications not later 

than May 2003, at which time we will take steps to ensure that the results enter into force as soon 

as possible thereafter.

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT

31. With a view to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, we agree 

to negotiations, without prejudging their outcome, on: 

(i) the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set 

out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The negotiations shall be 

limited in scope to the applicability of such existing WTO rules as among parties 

to the MEA in question. The negotiations shall not prejudice the WTO rights of 

any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question; 

(ii) procedures for regular information exchange between MEA Secretariats and the 

relevant WTO committees, and the criteria for the granting of observer status; 

(iii) the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to 

environmental goods and services. 

We note that fisheries subsidies form part of the negotiations provided for in paragraph 28. 

32. We instruct the Committee on Trade and Environment, in pursuing work on all items on 

its agenda within its current terms of reference, to give particular attention to: 

(i) the effect of environmental measures on market access, especially in relation to 

developing countries, in particular the least-developed among them, and those 

situations in which the elimination or reduction of trade restrictions and 

distortions would benefit trade, the environment and development; 

(ii) the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights; and 

(iii) labelling requirements for environmental purposes. 

Work on these issues should include the identification of any need to clarify relevant WTO rules. 

The Committee shall report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference, and make 

recommendations, where appropriate, with respect to future action, including the desirability of 

negotiations. The outcome of this work as well as the negotiations carried out under paragraph 

31. (i) and (ii) shall be compatible with the open and non-discriminatory nature of the 
multilateral trading system, shall not add to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members 

under existing WTO agreements, in particular the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures, nor alter the balance of these rights and obligations, and will take into 

account the needs of developing and least-developed countries. 

33. We recognize the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in the field of 

trade and environment to developing countries, in particular the least-developed among them. 

We also encourage that expertise and experience be shared with Members wishing to perform 

environmental reviews at the national level. A report shall be prepared on these activities for the 

Fifth Session. 

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

34. We take note of the work which has been done in the General Council and other relevant 

bodies since the Ministerial Declaration of 20 May 1998 and agree to continue the Work 

Programme on Electronic Commerce. The work to date demonstrates that electronic commerce 

creates new challenges and opportunities for trade for Members at all stages of development, and 

we recognize the importance of creating and maintaining an environment which is favourable to 

the future development of electronic commerce. We instruct the General Council to consider the 

most appropriate institutional arrangements for handling the Work Programme, and to report on 

further progress to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. We declare that Members will 

maintain their current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until 

the Fifth Session.

SMALL ECONOMIES

35. We agree to a work programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to examine 

issues relating to the trade of small economies. The objective of this work is to frame responses 

to the trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into 

the multilateral trading system, and not to create a sub-category of WTO Members. The General 

Council shall review the work programme and make recommendations for action to the Fifth 

Session of the Ministerial Conference. 

TRADE, DEBT AND FINANCE

36. We agree to an examination, in a Working Group under the auspices of the General 

Council, of the relationship between trade, debt and finance, and of any possible 

recommendations on steps that might be taken within the mandate and competence of the WTO 

to enhance the capacity of the multilateral trading system to contribute to a durable solution to the 

problem of external indebtedness of developing and least-developed countries, and to strengthen 

the coherence of international trade and financial policies, with a view to safeguarding the 

multilateral trading system from the effects of financial and monetary instability. The General 

Council shall report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on progress in the 

examination. 
TRADE AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY 

37. We agree to an examination, in a Working Group under the auspices of the General 

Council, of the relationship between trade and transfer of technology, and of any possible 

recommendations on steps that might be taken within the mandate of the WTO to increase flows 

of technology to developing countries. The General Council shall report to the Fifth Session of 

the Ministerial Conference on progress in the examination. 

TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING

38. We confirm that technical cooperation and capacity building are core elements of the 

development dimension of the multilateral trading system, and we welcome and endorse the New 

Strategy for WTO Technical Cooperation for Capacity Building, Growth and Integration. We 

instruct the Secretariat, in coordination with other relevant agencies, to support domestic efforts 

for mainstreaming trade into national plans for economic development and strategies for poverty 

reduction. The delivery of WTO technical assistance shall be designed to assist developing and 

least-developed countries and low-income countries in transition to adjust to WTO rules and 

disciplines, implement obligations and exercise the rights of membership, including drawing on 

the benefits of an open, rules-based multilateral trading system. Priority shall also be accorded to 

small, vulnerable, and transition economies, as well as to Members and Observers without 

representation in Geneva. We reaffirm our support for the valuable work of the International 

Trade Centre, which should be enhanced. 

39. We underscore the urgent necessity for the effective coordinated delivery of technical 

assistance with bilateral donors, in the OECD Development Assistance Committee and relevant 

international and regional intergovernmental institutions, within a coherent policy framework and 

timetable. In the coordinated delivery of technical assistance, we instruct the Director-General to 

consult with the relevant agencies, bilateral donors and beneficiaries, to identify ways of 

enhancing and rationalizing the Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to 

Least-Developed Countries and the Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme (JITAP). 

40. We agree that there is a need for technical assistance to benefit from secure and 

predictable funding. We therefore instruct the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration 

to develop a plan for adoption by the General Council in December 2001 that will ensure longterm funding for WTO technical assistance at an overall level no lower than that of the current 

year and commensurate with the activities outlined above.

41. We have established firm commitments on technical cooperation and capacity building in 

various paragraphs in this Ministerial Declaration. We reaffirm these specific commitments 

contained in paragraphs 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 33, 38-40, 42 and 43, and also reaffirm the 

understanding in paragraph 2 on the important role of sustainably financed technical assistance 

and capacity-building programmes. We instruct the Director-General to report to the Fifth 

Session of the Ministerial Conference, with an interim report to the General Council in December 

2002 on the implementation and adequacy of these commitments in the identified paragraphs. 

LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

42. We acknowledge the seriousness of the concerns expressed by the least-developed 

countries (LDCs) in the Zanzibar Declaration adopted by their Ministers in July 2001. We 

recognize that the integration of the LDCs into the multilateral trading system requires 
meaningful market access, support for the diversification of their production and export base, and 

trade-related technical assistance and capacity building. We agree that the meaningful integration 

of LDCs into the trading system and the global economy will involve efforts by all WTO 

Members. We commit ourselves to the objective of duty-free, quota-free market access for 

products originating from LDCs. In this regard, we welcome the significant market access 

improvements by WTO Members in advance of the Third UN Conference on LDCs (LDC-III), in 

Brussels, May 2001. We further commit ourselves to consider additional measures for 

progressive improvements in market access for LDCs. Accession of LDCs remains a priority for 

the Membership. We agree to work to facilitate and accelerate negotiations with acceding LDCs. 

We instruct the Secretariat to reflect the priority we attach to LDCs' accessions in the annual 

plans for technical assistance. We reaffirm the commitments we undertook at LDC-III, and agree 

that the WTO should take into account, in designing its work programme for LDCs, the traderelated elements of the Brussels Declaration and Programme of Action, consistent with the 

WTO's mandate, adopted at LDC-III. We instruct the Sub-Committee for Least-Developed 

Countries to design such a work programme and to report on the agreed work programme to the 

General Council at its first meeting in 2002. 

43. We endorse the Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to LeastDeveloped Countries (IF) as a viable model for LDCs' trade development. We urge development 

partners to significantly increase contributions to the IF Trust Fund and WTO extra-budgetary 

trust funds in favour of LDCs. We urge the core agencies, in coordination with development 

partners, to explore the enhancement of the IF with a view to addressing the supply-side 

constraints of LDCs and the extension of the model to all LDCs, following the review of the IF 

and the appraisal of the ongoing Pilot Scheme in selected LDCs. We request the DirectorGeneral, following coordination with heads of the other agencies, to provide an interim report to 

the General Council in December 2002 and a full report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial 

Conference on all issues affecting LDCs.

SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT

44. We reaffirm that provisions for special and differential treatment are an integral part of 

the WTO Agreements. We note the concerns expressed regarding their operation in addressing 

specific constraints faced by developing countries, particularly least-developed countries. In that 

connection, we also note that some Members have proposed a Framework Agreement on Special 

and Differential Treatment (WT/GC/W/442). We therefore agree that all special and differential 

treatment provisions shall be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more 

precise, effective and operational. In this connection, we endorse the work programme on special 

and differential treatment set out in the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns. 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE WORK PROGRAMME 

45. The negotiations to be pursued under the terms of this Declaration shall be concluded not 

later than 1 January 2005. The Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference will take stock of 

progress in the negotiations, provide any necessary political guidance, and take decisions as 

necessary. When the results of the negotiations in all areas have been established, a Special 

Session of the Ministerial Conference will be held to take decisions regarding the adoption and 

implementation of those results. 

46. The overall conduct of the negotiations shall be supervised by a Trade Negotiations 

Committee under the authority of the General Council. The Trade Negotiations Committee shall 
hold its first meeting not later than 31 January 2002. It shall establish appropriate negotiating 

mechanisms as required and supervise the progress of the negotiations. 

47. With the exception of the improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement 

Understanding, the conduct, conclusion and entry into force of the outcome of the negotiations 

shall be treated as parts of a single undertaking. However, agreements reached at an early stage 

may be implemented on a provisional or a definitive basis. Early agreements shall be taken into 

account in assessing the overall balance of the negotiations. 

48. Negotiations shall be open to: 

(i) all Members of the WTO; and 

(ii) States and separate customs territories currently in the process of accession and 

those that inform Members, at a regular meeting of the General Council, of their 

intention to negotiate the terms of their membership and for whom an accession 

working party is established. 

Decisions on the outcomes of the negotiations shall be taken only by WTO Members. 

49. The negotiations shall be conducted in a transparent manner among participants, in order 

to facilitate the effective participation of all. They shall be conducted with a view to ensuring 

benefits to all participants and to achieving an overall balance in the outcome of the negotiations. 

50. The negotiations and the other aspects of the Work Programme shall take fully into 

account the principle of special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed 

countries embodied in: Part IV of the GATT 1994; the Decision of 28 November 1979 on 

Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing 

Countries; the Uruguay Round Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries; 

and all other relevant WTO provisions. 

51. The Committee on Trade and Development and the Committee on Trade and 

Environment shall, within their respective mandates, each act as a forum to identify and debate 

developmental and environmental aspects of the negotiations, in order to help achieve the 

objective of having sustainable development appropriately reflected. 

52. Those elements of the Work Programme which do not involve negotiations are also 

accorded a high priority. They shall be pursued under the overall supervision of the General 

Council, which shall report on progress to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. 

_________
WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2

20 November 2001

(01-5860)

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE

Fourth Session

Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001

DECLARATION ON THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH 

Adopted on 14 November 2001

1. We recognize the gravity of the public health problems afflicting many developing and 

least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and 

other epidemics. 

2. We stress the need for the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) to be part of the wider national and international action to 

address these problems. 

3. We recognize that intellectual property protection is important for the development of 

new medicines. We also recognize the concerns about its effects on prices. 

4. We agree that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from 

taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the 

TRIPS Agreement, we affirm that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented 

in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to 

promote access to medicines for all. 

 In this connection, we reaffirm the right of WTO Members to use, to the full, the 

provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, which provide flexibility for this purpose. 

5. Accordingly and in the light of paragraph 4 above, while maintaining our commitments 

in the TRIPS Agreement, we recognize that these flexibilities include: 

(a) In applying the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, each 

provision of the TRIPS Agreement shall be read in the light of the object and 

purpose of the Agreement as expressed, in particular, in its objectives and 

principles. 

(b) Each Member has the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to 

determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted. 
(c) Each Member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or 

other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health 

crises, including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other 

epidemics, can represent a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme 

urgency. 

(d) The effect of the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that are relevant to the 

exhaustion of intellectual property rights is to leave each Member free to 

establish its own regime for such exhaustion without challenge, subject to the 

MFN and national treatment provisions of Articles 3 and 4. 

6. We recognize that WTO Members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the 

pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing 

under the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution 

to this problem and to report to the General Council before the end of 2002. 

7. We reaffirm the commitment of developed-country Members to provide incentives to 

their enterprises and institutions to promote and encourage technology transfer to least-developed 

country Members pursuant to Article 66.2. We also agree that the least-developed country 

Members will not be obliged, with respect to pharmaceutical products, to implement or apply 

Sections 5 and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement or to enforce rights provided for under these 

Sections until 1 January 2016, without prejudice to the right of least-developed country Members 

to seek other extensions of the transition periods as provided for in Article 66.1 of the TRIPS 

Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to take the necessary action to give effect to this 

pursuant to Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. 

_________
WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/MIN(01)/17

20 November 2001

(01-5858)

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE

Fourth Session

Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001

IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

Decision of 14 November 2001

The Ministerial Conference, 

Having regard to Articles IV.1, IV.5 and IX of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing 

the World Trade Organization (WTO); 

Mindful of the importance that Members attach to the increased participation of 

developing countries in the multilateral trading system, and of the need to ensure that the system 

responds fully to the needs and interests of all participants; 

Determined to take concrete action to address issues and concerns that have been raised 

by many developing-country Members regarding the implementation of some WTO Agreements 

and Decisions, including the difficulties and resource constraints that have been encountered in 

the implementation of obligations in various areas; 

Recalling the 3 May 2000 Decision of the General Council to meet in special sessions to 

address outstanding implementation issues, and to assess the existing difficulties, identify ways 

needed to resolve them, and take decisions for appropriate action not later than the Fourth Session 

of the Ministerial Conference; 

 Noting the actions taken by the General Council in pursuance of this mandate at its 

Special Sessions in October and December 2000 (WT/L/384), as well as the review and further 

discussion undertaken at the Special Sessions held in April, July and October 2001, including the 

referral of additional issues to relevant WTO bodies or their chairpersons for further work; 

 Noting also the reports on the issues referred to the General Council from subsidiary 

bodies and their chairpersons and from the Director-General, and the discussions as well as the 

clarifications provided and understandings reached on implementation issues in the intensive 

informal and formal meetings held under this process since May 2000; 

Decides as follows: 
 1. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994)

1.1 Reaffirms that Article XVIII of the GATT 1994 is a special and differential 

treatment provision for developing countries and that recourse to it should be less 

onerous than to Article XII of the GATT 1994. 

1.2 Noting the issues raised in the report of the Chairperson of the Committee on 

Market Access (WT/GC/50) concerning the meaning to be given to the phrase 

"substantial interest" in paragraph 2(d) of Article XIII of the GATT 1994, the 

Market Access Committee is directed to give further consideration to the issue 

and make recommendations to the General Council as expeditiously as possible 

but in any event not later than the end of 2002. 

2. Agreement on Agriculture

2.1 Urges Members to exercise restraint in challenging measures notified under the 

green box by developing countries to promote rural development and adequately 

address food security concerns. 

2.2 Takes note of the report of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/11) regarding 

the implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible 

Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net FoodImporting Developing Countries, and approves the recommendations contained 

therein regarding (i) food aid; (ii) technical and financial assistance in the context 

of aid programmes to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure; (iii) 

financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs; and (iv) 

review of follow-up. 

2.3 Takes note of the report of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/11) regarding 

the implementation of Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and 

approves the recommendations and reporting requirements contained therein. 

 

2.4 Takes note of the report of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/11) regarding 

the administration of tariff rate quotas and the submission by Members of 

addenda to their notifications, and endorses the decision by the Committee to 

keep this matter under review. 

3. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

3.1 Where the appropriate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection allows scope 

for the phased introduction of new sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the 

phrase "longer time-frame for compliance" referred to in Article 10.2 of the 

Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, shall be 

understood to mean normally a period of not less than 6 months. Where the 

appropriate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection does not allow scope 

for the phased introduction of a new measure, but specific problems are 

identified by a Member, the Member applying the measure shall upon request 

enter into consultations with the country with a view to finding a mutually 
satisfactory solution to the problem while continuing to achieve the importing 

Member's appropriate level of protection. 

3.2 Subject to the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of Annex B to the Agreement 

on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the phrase 

"reasonable interval" shall be understood to mean normally a period of not less 

than 6 months. It is understood that timeframes for specific measures have to be 

considered in the context of the particular circumstances of the measure and 

actions necessary to implement it. The entry into force of measures which 

contribute to the liberalization of trade should not be unnecessarily delayed. 

3.3 Takes note of the Decision of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures (G/SPS/19) regarding equivalence, and instructs the Committee to 

develop expeditiously the specific programme to further the implementation of 

Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures. 

3.4 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Application of 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Committee on Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures is instructed to review the operation and implementation 

of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures at least once every 

four years. 

 

3.5 (i) Takes note of the actions taken to date by the Director-General to facilitate the 

increased participation of Members at different levels of development in the 

work of the relevant international standard setting organizations as well as his 

efforts to coordinate with these organizations and financial institutions in 

identifying SPS-related technical assistance needs and how best to address them; 

and 

 (ii) urges the Director-General to continue his cooperative efforts with these 

organizations and institutions in this regard, including with a view to according 

priority to the effective participation of least-developed countries and facilitating 

the provision of technical and financial assistance for this purpose. 

3.6 (i) Urges Members to provide, to the extent possible, the financial and technical 

assistance necessary to enable least-developed countries to respond adequately to 

the introduction of any new SPS measures which may have significant negative 

effects on their trade; and 

 (ii) urges Members to ensure that technical assistance is provided to leastdeveloped countries with a view to responding to the special problems faced by 

them in implementing the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures. 

 

4. Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 

Reaffirms the commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Agreement on 

Textiles and Clothing, and agrees: 
4.1 that the provisions of the Agreement relating to the early integration of products 

and the elimination of quota restrictions should be effectively utilised. 

4.2 that Members will exercise particular consideration before initiating 

investigations in the context of antidumping remedies on textile and clothing 

exports from developing countries previously subject to quantitative restrictions 

under the Agreement for a period of two years following full integration of this 

Agreement into the WTO. 

4.3 that without prejudice to their rights and obligations, Members shall notify any 

changes in their rules of origin concerning products falling under the coverage of 

the Agreement to the Committee on Rules of Origin which may decide to 

examine them. 

 Requests the Council for Trade in Goods to examine the following proposals: 

4.4 that when calculating the quota levels for small suppliers for the remaining years 

of the Agreement, Members will apply the most favourable methodology 

available in respect of those Members under the growth-on-growth provisions 

from the beginning of the implementation period; extend the same treatment to 

least-developed countries; and, where possible, eliminate quota restrictions on 

imports of such Members; 

4.5 that Members will calculate the quota levels for the remaining years of the 

Agreement with respect to other restrained Members as if implementation of the 

growth-on-growth provision for stage 3 had been advanced to 1 January 2000; 

and make recommendations to the General Council by 31 July 2002 for 

appropriate action. 

 

5. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 

 

5.1 Confirms the approach to technical assistance being developed by the Committee 

on Technical Barriers to Trade, reflecting the results of the triennial review work 

in this area, and mandates this work to continue. 

5.2 Subject to the conditions specified in paragraph 12 of Article 2 of the Agreement 

on Technical Barriers to Trade, the phrase "reasonable interval" shall be 

understood to mean normally a period of not less than 6 months, except when 

this would be ineffective in fulfilling the legitimate objectives pursued. 

5.3 (i) Takes note of the actions taken to date by the Director-General to facilitate the 

increased participation of Members at different levels of development in the 

work of the relevant international standard setting organizations as well as his 

efforts to coordinate with these organizations and financial institutions in 

identifying TBT-related technical assistance needs and how best to address them; 

and 

 (ii) urges the Director-General to continue his cooperative efforts with these 

organizations and institutions, including with a view to according priority to the 
effective participation of least-developed countries and facilitating the provision 

of technical and financial assistance for this purpose. 

5.4 (i) Urges Members to provide, to the extent possible, the financial and technical 

assistance necessary to enable least-developed countries to respond adequately to 

the introduction of any new TBT measures which may have significant negative 

effects on their trade; and 

 (ii) urges Members to ensure that technical assistance is provided to leastdeveloped countries with a view to responding to the special problems faced by 

them in implementing the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. 

6. Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures

6.1 Takes note of the actions taken by the Council for Trade in Goods in regard to 

requests from some developing-country Members for the extension of the fiveyear transitional period provided for in Article 5.2 of Agreement on TradeRelated Investment Measures. 

6.2 Urges the Council for Trade in Goods to consider positively requests that may be 

made by least-developed countries under Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement or 

Article IX.3 of the WTO Agreement, as well as to take into consideration the 

particular circumstances of least-developed countries when setting the terms and 

conditions including time-frames. 

 

7. Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 

Trade 1994 

7.1 Agrees that investigating authorities shall examine with special care any 

application for the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation where an 

investigation of the same product from the same Member resulted in a negative 

finding within the 365 days prior to the filing of the application and that, unless 

this pre-initiation examination indicates that circumstances have changed, the 

investigation shall not proceed. 

 

7.2 Recognizes that, while Article 15 of the Agreement on the Implementation of 

Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 is a mandatory 

provision, the modalities for its application would benefit from clarification. 

Accordingly, the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices is instructed, through its 

working group on Implementation, to examine this issue and to draw up 

appropriate recommendations within twelve months on how to operationalize this 

provision. 

7.3 Takes note that Article 5.8 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI 

of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 does not specify the timeframe to be used in determining the volume of dumped imports, and that this lack 

of specificity creates uncertainties in the implementation of the provision. The 

Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices is instructed, through its working group 

on Implementation, to study this issue and draw up recommendations within 12 
months, with a view to ensuring the maximum possible predictability and 

objectivity in the application of time frames. 

7.4 Takes note that Article 18.6 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article 

VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 requires the Committee 

on Anti-Dumping Practices to review annually the implementation and operation 

of the Agreement taking into account the objectives thereof. The Committee on 

Anti-dumping Practices is instructed to draw up guidelines for the improvement 

of annual reviews and to report its views and recommendations to the General 

Council for subsequent decision within 12 months. 

8. Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 

and Trade 1994 

8.1 Takes note of the actions taken by the Committee on Customs Valuation in 

regard to the requests from a number of developing-country Members for the 

extension of the five-year transitional period provided for in Article 20.1 of 

Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on 

Tariffs and Trade 1994. 

8.2 Urges the Council for Trade in Goods to give positive consideration to requests 

that may be made by least-developed country Members under paragraphs 1 and 2 

of Annex III of the Customs Valuation Agreement or under Article IX.3 of the 

WTO Agreement, as well as to take into consideration the particular 

circumstances of least-developed countries when setting the terms and conditions 

including time-frames. 

 

8.3 Underlines the importance of strengthening cooperation between the customs 

administrations of Members in the prevention of customs fraud. In this regard, it 

is agreed that, further to the 1994 Ministerial Decision Regarding Cases Where 

Customs Administrations Have Reasons to Doubt the Truth or Accuracy of the 

Declared Value, when the customs administration of an importing Member has 

reasonable grounds to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value, it may 

seek assistance from the customs administration of an exporting Member on the 

value of the good concerned. In such cases, the exporting Member shall offer 

cooperation and assistance, consistent with its domestic laws and procedures, 

including furnishing information on the export value of the good concerned. Any 

information provided in this context shall be treated in accordance with Article 

10 of the Customs Valuation Agreement. Furthermore, recognizing the 

legitimate concerns expressed by the customs administrations of several 

importing Members on the accuracy of the declared value, the Committee on 

Customs Valuation is directed to identify and assess practical means to address 

such concerns, including the exchange of information on export values and to 

report to the General Council by the end of 2002 at the latest. 
9. Agreement on Rules of Origin 

9.1 Takes note of the report of the Committee on Rules of Origin (G/RO/48) 

regarding progress on the harmonization work programme, and urges the 

Committee to complete its work by the end of 2001. 

9.2 Agrees that any interim arrangements on rules of origin implemented by 

Members in the transitional period before the entry into force of the results of the 

harmonisation work programme shall be consistent with the Agreement on Rules 

of Origin, particularly Articles 2 and 5 thereof. Without prejudice to Members' 

rights and obligations, such arrangements may be examined by the Committee on 

Rules of Origin. 

 

10. Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

10.1 Agrees that Annex VII(b) to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 

Measures includes the Members that are listed therein until their GNP per capita 

reaches US $1,000 in constant 1990 dollars for three consecutive years. This 

decision will enter into effect upon the adoption by the Committee on Subsidies 

and Countervailing Measures of an appropriate methodology for calculating 

constant 1990 dollars. If, however, the Committee on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures does not reach a consensus agreement on an 

appropriate methodology by 1 January 2003, the methodology proposed by the 

Chairman of the Committee set forth in G/SCM/38, Appendix 2 shall be applied. 

A Member shall not leave Annex VII(b) 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. 

10.2 Takes note of the proposal to treat measures implemented by developing 

countries with a view to achieving legitimate development goals, such as regional 

growth, technology research and development funding, production diversification 

and development and implementation of environmentally sound methods of 

production as non-actionable subsidies, and agrees that this issue be addressed in 

accordance with paragraph 13 below. During the course of the negotiations, 

Members are urged to exercise due restraint with respect to challenging such 

measures. 

10.3 Agrees that the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures shall 

continue its review of the provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures regarding countervailing duty investigations and report 

to the General Council by 31 July 2002. 

10.4 Agrees that if a Member has been excluded from the list in paragraph (b) of 

Annex VII to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, it shall 

be re-included in it when its GNP per capita falls back below US$ 1,000. 

10.5 Subject to the provisions of Articles 27.5 and 27.6, it is reaffirmed that leastdeveloped country Members are exempt from the prohibition on export subsidies 

set forth in Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 

Measures, and thus have flexibility to finance their exporters, consistent with 

their development needs. It is understood that the eight-year period in Article 
27.5 within which a least-developed country Member must phase out its export 

subsidies in respect of a product in which it is export-competitive begins from the 

date export competitiveness exists within the meaning of Article 27.6. 

10.6 Having regard to the particular situation of certain developing-country Members, 

directs the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to extend the 

transition period, under the rubric of Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies 

and Countervailing Measures, for certain export subsidies provided by such 

Members, pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39. 

Furthermore, when considering a request for an extension of the transition period 

under the rubric of Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures, and in order to avoid that Members at similar stages of 

development and having a similar order of magnitude of share in world trade are 

treated differently in terms of receiving such extensions for the same eligible 

programmes and the length of such extensions, directs the Committee to extend 

the transition period for those developing countries, after taking into account the 

relative competitiveness in relation to other developing-country Members who 

have requested extension of the transition period following the procedures set 

forth in document G/SCM/39. 

11. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

11.1 The TRIPS Council is directed to continue its examination of the scope and 

modalities for complaints of the types provided for under subparagraphs 1(b) and 

1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make recommendations to the Fifth 

Session of the Ministerial Conference. It is agreed that, in the meantime, 

Members will not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. 

11.2 Reaffirming that the provisions of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are 

mandatory, it is agreed that the TRIPS Council shall put in place a mechanism 

for ensuring the monitoring and full implementation of the obligations in 

question. To this end, developed-country Members shall submit prior to the end 

of 2002 detailed reports on the functioning in practice of the incentives provided 

to their enterprises for the transfer of technology in pursuance of their 

commitments under Article 66.2. These submissions shall be subject to a review 

in the TRIPS Council and information shall be updated by Members annually. 

12. Cross-cutting Issues

12.1 The Committee on Trade and Development is instructed: 

 (i) to identify those special and differential treatment provisions that are 

already mandatory in nature and those that are non-binding in character, to 

consider the legal and practical implications for developed and developing 

Members of converting special and differential treatment measures into 

mandatory provisions, to identify those that Members consider should be made 

mandatory, and to report to the General Council with clear recommendations for 

a decision by July 2002; 
 (ii) to examine additional ways in which special and differential treatment 

provisions can be made more effective, to consider ways, including improved 

information flows, in which developing countries, in particular the leastdeveloped countries, may be assisted to make best use of special and differential 

treatment provisions, and to report to the General Council with clear 

recommendations for a decision by July 2002; and 

 (iii) to consider, in the context of the work programme adopted at the Fourth 

Session of the Ministerial Conference, how special and differential treatment 

may be incorporated into the architecture of WTO rules. 

 The work of the Committee on Trade and Development in this regard shall take 

fully into consideration previous work undertaken as noted in WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1. 

It will also be without prejudice to work in respect of implementation of WTO 

Agreements in the General Council and in other Councils and Committees. 

12.2 Reaffirms that preferences granted to developing countries pursuant to the 

Decision of the Contracting Parties of 28 November 1979 ("Enabling Clause")1

should be generalised, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory. 

13. Outstanding Implementation Issues2

 Agrees that outstanding implementation issues be addressed in accordance with 

paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1). 

14. Final Provisions 

 Requests the Director-General, consistent with paragraphs 38 to 43 of the Ministerial 

Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1), to ensure that WTO technical assistance focuses, on a 

priority basis, on assisting developing countries to implement existing WTO obligations as well 

as on increasing their capacity to participate more effectively in future multilateral trade 

negotiations. In carrying out this mandate, the WTO Secretariat should cooperate more closely 

with international and regional intergovernmental organisations so as to increase efficiency and 

synergies and avoid duplication of programmes. 

__________ 

 

1

 BISD 26S/203. 

2

A list of these issues is compiled in document Job(01)/152/Rev.1. 
WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/L/579

2 August 2004

(04-3297)

Doha Work Programme 

Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004 

1. The General Council reaffirms the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions adopted at 

Doha and the full commitment of all Members to give effect to them. The Council emphasizes 

Members' resolve to complete the Doha Work Programme fully and to conclude successfully the 

negotiations launched at Doha. Taking into account the Ministerial Statement adopted at Cancún 

on 14 September 2003, and the statements by the Council Chairman and the Director-General at 

the Council meeting of 15-16 December 2003, the Council takes note of the report by the 

Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) and agrees to take action as follows: 

a. Agriculture: the General Council adopts the framework set out in Annex A to this 

document. 

b. Cotton: the General Council reaffirms the importance of the Sectoral Initiative on 

Cotton and takes note of the parameters set out in Annex A within which the trade-related 

aspects of this issue will be pursued in the agriculture negotiations. The General Council 

also attaches importance to the development aspects of the Cotton Initiative and wishes to 

stress the complementarity between the trade and development aspects. The Council takes 

note of the recent Workshop on Cotton in Cotonou on 23-24 March 2004 organized by the 

WTO Secretariat, and other bilateral and multilateral efforts to make progress on the 

development assistance aspects and instructs the Secretariat to continue to work with the 

development community and to provide the Council with periodic reports on relevant 

developments. 

Members should work on related issues of development multilaterally with the international 

financial institutions, continue their bilateral programmes, and all developed countries are 

urged to participate. In this regard, the General Council instructs the Director General to 

consult with the relevant international organizations, including the Bretton Woods 

Institutions, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Trade Centre to 

direct effectively existing programmes and any additional resources towards development of 

the economies where cotton has vital importance. 

c. Non-agricultural Market Access: the General Council adopts the framework set out in 

Annex B to this document. 

d. Development: 

Principles: development concerns form an integral part of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 

The General Council rededicates and recommits Members to fulfilling the development 
dimension of the Doha Development Agenda, which places the needs and interests of 

developing and least-developed countries at the heart of the Doha Work Programme. The 

Council reiterates the important role that enhanced market access, balanced rules, and well 

targeted, sustainably financed technical assistance and capacity building programmes can 

play in the economic development of these countries. 

Special and Differential Treatment: the General Council reaffirms that provisions for 

special and differential (S&D) treatment are an integral part of the WTO Agreements. The 

Council recalls Ministers' decision in Doha to review all S&D treatment provisions with a 

view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational. The 

Council recognizes the progress that has been made so far. The Council instructs the 

Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session to expeditiously complete the 

review of all the outstanding Agreement-specific proposals and report to the General 

Council, with clear recommendations for a decision, by July 2005. The Council further 

instructs the Committee, within the parameters of the Doha mandate, to address all other 

outstanding work, including on the cross-cutting issues, the monitoring mechanism and the 

incorporation of S&D treatment into the architecture of WTO rules, as referred to in 

TN/CTD/7 and report, as appropriate, to the General Council. 

The Council also instructs all WTO bodies to which proposals in Category II have been 

referred to expeditiously complete the consideration of these proposals and report to the 

General Council, with clear recommendations for a decision, as soon as possible and no later 

than July 2005. In doing so these bodies will ensure that, as far as possible, their meetings do 

not overlap so as to enable full and effective participation of developing countries in these 

discussions. 

Technical Assistance: the General Council recognizes the progress that has been made 

since the Doha Ministerial Conference in expanding Trade-Related Technical Assistance 

(TRTA) to developing countries and low-income countries in transition. In furthering this 

effort the Council affirms that such countries, and in particular least-developed countries, 

should be provided with enhanced TRTA and capacity building, to increase their effective 

participation in the negotiations, to facilitate their implementation of WTO rules, and to 

enable them to adjust and diversify their economies. In this context the Council welcomes 

and further encourages the improved coordination with other agencies, including under the 

Integrated Framework for TRTA for the LDCs (IF) and the Joint Integrated Technical 

Assistance Programme (JITAP).

Implementation: concerning implementation-related issues, the General Council reaffirms 

the mandates Ministers gave in paragraph 12 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the 

Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, and renews Members' 

determination to find appropriate solutions to outstanding issues. The Council instructs the 

Trade Negotiations Committee, negotiating bodies and other WTO bodies concerned to 

redouble their efforts to find appropriate solutions as a priority. Without prejudice to the 

positions of Members, the Council requests the Director-General to continue with his 

consultative process on all outstanding implementation issues under paragraph 12(b) of the 

Doha Ministerial Declaration, including on issues related to the extension of the protection of 

geographical indications provided for in Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to products 

other than wines and spirits, if need be by appointing Chairpersons of concerned WTO 

bodies as his Friends and/or by holding dedicated consultations. The Director-General shall 

report to the TNC and the General Council no later than May 2005. The Council shall 

review progress and take any appropriate action no later than July 2005. 
Other Development Issues: in the ongoing market access negotiations, recognising the 

fundamental principles of the WTO and relevant provisions of GATT 1994, special attention 

shall be given to the specific trade and development related needs and concerns of 

developing countries, including capacity constraints. These particular concerns of 

developing countries, including relating to food security, rural development, livelihood, 

preferences, commodities and net food imports, as well as prior unilateral liberalisation, 

should be taken into consideration, as appropriate, in the course of the Agriculture and 

NAMA negotiations. The trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, 

vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system, should also be addressed, without 

creating a sub-category of Members, as part of a work programme, as mandated in paragraph 

35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 

Least-Developed Countries: the General Council reaffirms the commitments made at Doha 

concerning least-developed countries and renews its determination to fulfil these 

commitments. Members will continue to take due account of the concerns of least-developed 

countries in the negotiations. The Council confirms that nothing in this Decision shall 

detract in any way from the special provisions agreed by Members in respect of these 

countries. 

e. Services: the General Council takes note of the report to the TNC by the Special Session 

of the Council for Trade in Services1

 and reaffirms Members' commitment to progress in this 

area of the negotiations in line with the Doha mandate. The Council adopts the 

recommendations agreed by the Special Session, set out in Annex C to this document, on the 

basis of which further progress in the services negotiations will be pursued. Revised offers 

should be tabled by May 2005. 

f. Other negotiating bodies: 

Rules, Trade & Environment and TRIPS: the General Council takes note of the reports to 

the TNC by the Negotiating Group on Rules and by the Special Sessions of the Committee 

on Trade and Environment and the TRIPS Council.2

 The Council reaffirms Members' 

commitment to progress in all of these areas of the negotiations in line with the Doha 

mandates. 

Dispute Settlement: the General Council takes note of the report to the TNC by the Special 

Session of the Dispute Settlement Body3

 and reaffirms Members' commitment to progress in 

this area of the negotiations in line with the Doha mandate. The Council adopts the TNC's 

recommendation that work in the Special Session should continue on the basis set out by the 

Chairman of that body in his report to the TNC. 

g. Trade Facilitation: taking note of the work done on trade facilitation by the Council for 

Trade in Goods under the mandate in paragraph 27 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and 

the work carried out under the auspices of the General Council both prior to the Fifth 

Ministerial Conference and after its conclusion, the General Council decides by explicit 

consensus to commence negotiations on the basis of the modalities set out in Annex D to this 

document. 

 

1

 This report is contained in document TN/S/16. 

2

 The reports to the TNC referenced in this paragraph are contained in the following documents: 

Negotiating Group on Rules - TN/RL/9; Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment - 

TN/TE/9; Special Session of the Council for TRIPS - TN/IP/10. 3

 This report is contained in document TN/DS/10. 
Relationship between Trade and Investment, Interaction between Trade and 

Competition Policy and Transparency in Government Procurement: the Council agrees 

that these issues, mentioned in the Doha Ministerial Declaration in paragraphs 20-22, 23-25 

and 26 respectively, will not form part of the Work Programme set out in that Declaration 

and therefore no work towards negotiations on any of these issues will take place within the 

WTO during the Doha Round. 

h. Other elements of the Work Programme: the General Council reaffirms the high 

priority Ministers at Doha gave to those elements of the Work Programme which do not 

involve negotiations. Noting that a number of these issues are of particular interest to 

developing-country Members, the Council emphasizes its commitment to fulfil the mandates 

given by Ministers in all these areas. To this end, the General Council and other relevant 

bodies shall report in line with their Doha mandates to the Sixth Session of the Ministerial 

Conference. The moratoria covered by paragraph 11.1 of the Doha Ministerial Decision on 

Implementation-related Issues and Concerns and paragraph 34 of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration are extended up to the Sixth Ministerial Conference. 

2. The General Council agrees that this Decision and its Annexes shall not be used in any 

dispute settlement proceeding under the DSU and shall not be used for interpreting the existing 

WTO Agreements. 

3. The General Council calls on all Members to redouble their efforts towards the 

conclusion of a balanced overall outcome of the Doha Development Agenda in fulfilment of the 

commitments Ministers took at Doha. The Council agrees to continue the negotiations launched 

at Doha beyond the timeframe set out in paragraph 45 of the Doha Declaration, leading to the 

Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference. Recalling its decision of 21 October 2003 to accept 

the generous offer of the Government of Hong Kong, China to host the Sixth Session, the Council 

further agrees that this Session will be held in December 2005. 

_______________ 
Annex A 

Framework for Establishing Modalities in Agriculture 

1. The starting point for the current phase of the agriculture negotiations has been the 

mandate set out in Paragraph 13 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. This in turn built on the 

long-term objective of the Agreement on Agriculture to establish a fair and market-oriented 

trading system through a programme of fundamental reform. The elements below offer the 

additional precision required at this stage of the negotiations and thus the basis for the 

negotiations of full modalities in the next phase. The level of ambition set by the Doha mandate 

will continue to be the basis for the negotiations on agriculture. 

2. The final balance will be found only at the conclusion of these subsequent negotiations 

and within the Single Undertaking. To achieve this balance, the modalities to be developed will 

need to incorporate operationally effective and meaningful provisions for special and differential 

treatment for developing country Members. Agriculture is of critical importance to the economic 

development of developing country Members and they must be able to pursue agricultural 

policies that are supportive of their development goals, poverty reduction strategies, food security 

and livelihood concerns. Non-trade concerns, as referred to in Paragraph 13 of the Doha 

Declaration, will be taken into account. 

3. The reforms in all three pillars form an interconnected whole and must be approached in 

a balanced and equitable manner. 

4. The General Council recognizes the importance of cotton for a certain number of 

countries and its vital importance for developing countries, especially LDCs. It will be addressed 

ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically, within the agriculture negotiations. The provisions 

of this framework provide a basis for this approach, as does the sectoral initiative on cotton. The 

Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture shall ensure appropriate prioritization of the 

cotton issue independently from other sectoral initiatives. A subcommittee on cotton will meet 

periodically and report to the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture to review 

progress. Work shall encompass all trade-distorting policies affecting the sector in all three 

pillars of market access, domestic support, and export competition, as specified in the Doha text 

and this Framework text. 

5. Coherence between trade and development aspects of the cotton issue will be pursued as 

set out in paragraph 1.b of the text to which this Framework is annexed. 

DOMESTIC SUPPORT 

6. The Doha Ministerial Declaration calls for "substantial reductions in trade-distorting 

domestic support". With a view to achieving these substantial reductions, the negotiations in this 

pillar will ensure the following: 

 Special and differential treatment remains an integral component of domestic support. 

Modalities to be developed will include longer implementation periods and lower 

reduction coefficients for all types of trade-distorting domestic support and continued 

access to the provisions under Article 6.2. 
 There will be a strong element of harmonisation in the reductions made by developed 

Members. Specifically, higher levels of permitted trade-distorting domestic support will 

be subject to deeper cuts. 

 Each such Member will make a substantial reduction in the overall level of its tradedistorting support from bound levels. 

 As well as this overall commitment, Final Bound Total AMS and permitted de minimis

levels will be subject to substantial reductions and, in the case of the Blue Box, will be 

capped as specified in paragraph 15 in order to ensure results that are coherent with the 

long-term reform objective. Any clarification or development of rules and conditions to 

govern trade distorting support will take this into account. 

Overall Reduction: A Tiered Formula 

7. The overall base level of all trade-distorting domestic support, as measured by the Final 

Bound Total AMS plus permitted de minimis level and the level agreed in paragraph 8 below for 

Blue Box payments, will be reduced according to a tiered formula. Under this formula, Members 

having higher levels of trade-distorting domestic support will make greater overall reductions in 

order to achieve a harmonizing result. As the first instalment of the overall cut, in the first year 

and throughout the implementation period, the sum of all trade-distorting support will not exceed 

80 per cent of the sum of Final Bound Total AMS plus permitted de minimis plus the Blue Box at 

the level determined in paragraph 15. 

8. The following parameters will guide the further negotiation of this tiered formula: 

 This commitment will apply as a minimum overall commitment. It will not be applied as 

a ceiling on reductions of overall trade-distorting domestic support, should the separate 

and complementary formulae to be developed for Total AMS, de minimis and Blue Box 

payments imply, when taken together, a deeper cut in overall trade-distorting domestic 

support for an individual Member. 

 The base for measuring the Blue Box component will be the higher of existing Blue Box 

payments during a recent representative period to be agreed and the cap established in 

paragraph 15 below.

Final Bound Total AMS: A Tiered Formula 

9. To achieve reductions with a harmonizing effect: 

 Final Bound Total AMS will be reduced substantially, using a tiered approach. 

 Members having higher Total AMS will make greater reductions. 

 To prevent circumvention of the objective of the Agreement through transfers of 

unchanged domestic support between different support categories, product-specific 

AMSs will be capped at their respective average levels according to a methodology to be 

agreed. 
 Substantial reductions in Final Bound Total AMS will result in reductions of some 

product-specific support. 

10. Members may make greater than formula reductions in order to achieve the required level 

of cut in overall trade-distorting domestic support. 

De Minimis 

11. Reductions in de minimis will be negotiated taking into account the principle of special 

and differential treatment. Developing countries that allocate almost all de minimis support for 

subsistence and resource-poor farmers will be exempt. 

12. Members may make greater than formula reductions in order to achieve the required level 

of cut in overall trade-distorting domestic support. 

Blue Box 

13. Members recognize the role of the Blue Box in promoting agricultural reforms. In this 

light, Article 6.5 will be reviewed so that Members may have recourse to the following measures: 

 Direct payments under production-limiting programmes if: 

- such payments are based on fixed and unchanging areas and yields; or 

- such payments are made on 85% or less of a fixed and unchanging base level of 

production; or 

- livestock payments are made on a fixed and unchanging number of head. 

Or 

 Direct payments that do not require production if: 

- such payments are based on fixed and unchanging bases and yields; or 

- livestock payments made on a fixed and unchanging number of head; and 

- such payments are made on 85% or less of a fixed and unchanging base level of 

production. 

14. The above criteria, along with additional criteria will be negotiated. Any such criteria will 

ensure that Blue Box payments are less trade-distorting than AMS measures, it being understood 

that: 

 Any new criteria would need to take account of the balance of WTO rights and 

obligations. 

 Any new criteria to be agreed will not have the perverse effect of undoing ongoing 

reforms. 

15. Blue Box support will not exceed 5% of a Member’s average total value of agricultural 

production during an historical period. The historical period will be established in the 

negotiations. This ceiling will apply to any actual or potential Blue Box user from the beginning 

of the implementation period. In cases where a Member has placed an exceptionally large 

percentage of its trade-distorting support in the Blue Box, some flexibility will be provided on a 
basis to be agreed to ensure that such a Member is not called upon to make a wholly 

disproportionate cut. 

Green Box 

16. Green Box criteria will be reviewed and clarified with a view to ensuring that Green Box 

measures have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production. Such a 

review and clarification will need to ensure that the basic concepts, principles and effectiveness 

of the Green Box remain and take due account of non-trade concerns. The improved obligations 

for monitoring and surveillance of all new disciplines foreshadowed in paragraph 48 below will 

be particularly important with respect to the Green Box. 

EXPORT COMPETITION 

17. The Doha Ministerial Declaration calls for "reduction of, with a view to phasing out, all 

forms of export subsidies". As an outcome of the negotiations, Members agree to establish 

detailed modalities ensuring the parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidies and 

disciplines on all export measures with equivalent effect by a credible end date. 

End Point 

18. The following will be eliminated by the end date to be agreed: 

 Export subsidies as scheduled. 

 Export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes with repayment periods 

beyond 180 days. 

 Terms and conditions relating to export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance 

programmes with repayment periods of 180 days and below which are not in accordance 

with disciplines to be agreed. These disciplines will cover, inter alia, payment of interest, 

minimum interest rates, minimum premium requirements, and other elements which can 

constitute subsidies or otherwise distort trade. 

 Trade distorting practices with respect to exporting STEs including eliminating export 

subsidies provided to or by them, government financing, and the underwriting of losses. 

The issue of the future use of monopoly powers will be subject to further negotiation. 

 Provision of food aid that is not in conformity with operationally effective disciplines to 

be agreed. The objective of such disciplines will be to prevent commercial displacement. 

The role of international organizations as regards the provision of food aid by Members, 

including related humanitarian and developmental issues, will be addressed in the 

negotiations. The question of providing food aid exclusively in fully grant form will also 

be addressed in the negotiations.

19. Effective transparency provisions for paragraph 18 will be established. Such provisions, 

in accordance with standard WTO practice, will be consistent with commercial confidentiality 

considerations. 
Implementation 

20. Commitments and disciplines in paragraph 18 will be implemented according to a 

schedule and modalities to be agreed. Commitments will be implemented by annual instalments. 

Their phasing will take into account the need for some coherence with internal reform steps of 

Members. 

21. The negotiation of the elements in paragraph 18 and their implementation will ensure 

equivalent and parallel commitments by Members. 

Special and Differential Treatment 

22. Developing country Members will benefit from longer implementation periods for the 

phasing out of all forms of export subsidies. 

23. Developing countries will continue to benefit from special and differential treatment 

under the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture for a reasonable period, to be 

negotiated, after the phasing out of all forms of export subsidies and implementation of all 

disciplines identified above are completed. 

24. Members will ensure that the disciplines on export credits, export credit guarantees or 

insurance programs to be agreed will make appropriate provision for differential treatment in 

favour of least-developed and net food-importing developing countries as provided for in 

paragraph 4 of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform 

Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries. Improved 

obligations for monitoring and surveillance of all new disciplines as foreshadowed in paragraph 

48 will be critically important in this regard. Provisions to be agreed in this respect must not 

undermine the commitments undertaken by Members under the obligations in paragraph 18 

above. 

25. STEs in developing country Members which enjoy special privileges to preserve 

domestic consumer price stability and to ensure food security will receive special consideration 

for maintaining monopoly status. 

Special Circumstances 

26. In exceptional circumstances, which cannot be adequately covered by food aid, 

commercial export credits or preferential international financing facilities, ad hoc temporary 

financing arrangements relating to exports to developing countries may be agreed by Members. 

Such agreements must not have the effect of undermining commitments undertaken by Members 

in paragraph 18 above, and will be based on criteria and consultation procedures to be 

established. 

MARKET ACCESS 

27. The Doha Ministerial Declaration calls for "substantial improvements in market access". 

Members also agreed that special and differential treatment for developing Members would be an 

integral part of all elements in the negotiations. 
The Single Approach: a Tiered Formula 

28. To ensure that a single approach for developed and developing country Members meets 

all the objectives of the Doha mandate, tariff reductions will be made through a tiered formula 

that takes into account their different tariff structures. 

29. To ensure that such a formula will lead to substantial trade expansion, the following 

principles will guide its further negotiation: 

 Tariff reductions will be made from bound rates. Substantial overall tariff reductions will 

be achieved as a final result from negotiations. 

 Each Member (other than LDCs) will make a contribution. Operationally effective 

special and differential provisions for developing country Members will be an integral 

part of all elements. 

 Progressivity in tariff reductions will be achieved through deeper cuts in higher tariffs 

with flexibilities for sensitive products. Substantial improvements in market access will 

be achieved for all products. 

30. The number of bands, the thresholds for defining the bands and the type of tariff 

reduction in each band remain under negotiation. The role of a tariff cap in a tiered formula with 

distinct treatment for sensitive products will be further evaluated. 

Sensitive Products 

Selection

31. Without undermining the overall objective of the tiered approach, Members may 

designate an appropriate number, to be negotiated, of tariff lines to be treated as sensitive, taking 

account of existing commitments for these products. 

Treatment

32. The principle of ‘substantial improvement’ will apply to each product. 

33. ‘Substantial improvement’ will be achieved through combinations of tariff quota 

commitments and tariff reductions applying to each product. However, balance in this 

negotiation will be found only if the final negotiated result also reflects the sensitivity of the 

product concerned. 

34. Some MFN-based tariff quota expansion will be required for all such products. A base 

for such an expansion will be established, taking account of coherent and equitable criteria to be 

developed in the negotiations. In order not to undermine the objective of the tiered approach, for 

all such products, MFN based tariff quota expansion will be provided under specific rules to be 

negotiated taking into account deviations from the tariff formula. 

Other Elements 

35. Other elements that will give the flexibility required to reach a final balanced result 

include reduction or elimination of in-quota tariff rates, and operationally effective improvements 
in tariff quota administration for existing tariff quotas so as to enable Members, and particularly 

developing country Members, to fully benefit from the market access opportunities under tariff 

rate quotas. 

36. Tariff escalation will be addressed through a formula to be agreed. 

37. The issue of tariff simplification remains under negotiation. 

38. The question of the special agricultural safeguard (SSG) remains under negotiation. 

Special and differential treatment 

39. Having regard to their rural development, food security and/or livelihood security needs, 

special and differential treatment for developing countries will be an integral part of all elements 

of the negotiation, including the tariff reduction formula, the number and treatment of sensitive 

products, expansion of tariff rate quotas, and implementation period.

40. Proportionality will be achieved by requiring lesser tariff reduction commitments or tariff 

quota expansion commitments from developing country Members. 

41. Developing country Members will have the flexibility to designate an appropriate number 

of products as Special Products, based on criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural 

development needs. These products will be eligible for more flexible treatment. The criteria and 

treatment of these products will be further specified during the negotiation phase and will 

recognize the fundamental importance of Special Products to developing countries. 

42. A Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) will be established for use by developing country 

Members. 

43. Full implementation of the long-standing commitment to achieve the fullest liberalisation 

of trade in tropical agricultural products and for products of particular importance to the 

diversification of production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops is overdue and will be 

addressed effectively in the market access negotiations. 

44. The importance of long-standing preferences is fully recognised. The issue of preference 

erosion will be addressed. For the further consideration in this regard, paragraph 16 and other 

relevant provisions of TN/AG/W/1/Rev.1 will be used as a reference. 

LEAST- DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 

45. Least-Developed Countries, which will have full access to all special and differential 

treatment provisions above, are not required to undertake reduction commitments. Developed 

Members, and developing country Members in a position to do so, should provide duty-free and 

quota-free market access for products originating from least-developed countries. 

46. Work on cotton under all the pillars will reflect the vital importance of this sector to 

certain LDC Members and we will work to achieve ambitious results expeditiously. 

RECENTLY ACCEDED MEMBERS 

47. The particular concerns of recently acceded Members will be effectively addressed 

through specific flexibility provisions. 
MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE 

48. Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture will be amended with a view to enhancing 

monitoring so as to effectively ensure full transparency, including through timely and complete 

notifications with respect to the commitments in market access, domestic support and export 

competition. The particular concerns of developing countries in this regard will be addressed. 

OTHER ISSUES 

49. Issues of interest but not agreed: sectoral initiatives, differential export taxes, GIs. 

50. Disciplines on export prohibitions and restrictions in Article 12.1 of the Agreement on 

Agriculture will be strengthened. 
Annex B 

Framework for Establishing Modalities in 

Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products 

1. This Framework contains the initial elements for future work on modalities by the 

Negotiating Group on Market Access. Additional negotiations are required to reach agreement 

on the specifics of some of these elements. These relate to the formula, the issues concerning the 

treatment of unbound tariffs in indent two of paragraph 5, the flexibilities for developing-country 

participants, the issue of participation in the sectorial tariff component and the preferences. In 

order to finalize the modalities, the Negotiating Group is instructed to address these issues 

expeditiously in a manner consistent with the mandate of paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration and the overall balance therein. 

2. We reaffirm that negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products shall aim to 

reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, 

high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular on products of export 

interest to developing countries. We also reaffirm the importance of special and differential 

treatment and less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments as integral parts of the 

modalities. 

3. We acknowledge the substantial work undertaken by the Negotiating Group on Market 

Access and the progress towards achieving an agreement on negotiating modalities. We take note 

of the constructive dialogue on the Chair's Draft Elements of Modalities (TN/MA/W/35/Rev.1) 

and confirm our intention to use this document as a reference for the future work of the 

Negotiating Group. We instruct the Negotiating Group to continue its work, as mandated by 

paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration with its corresponding references to the 

relevant provisions of Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 and to the provisions cited in paragraph 

50 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, on the basis set out below. 

4. We recognize that a formula approach is key to reducing tariffs, and reducing or 

eliminating tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation. We agree that the Negotiating Group 

should continue its work on a non-linear formula applied on a line-by-line basis which shall take 

fully into account the special needs and interests of developing and least-developed country 

participants, including through less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments. 

5. We further agree on the following elements regarding the formula: 

- product coverage shall be comprehensive without a priori exclusions; 

- tariff reductions or elimination shall commence from the bound rates after full 

implementation of current concessions; however, for unbound tariff lines, the 

basis for commencing the tariff reductions shall be [two] times the MFN applied 

rate in the base year; 

- the base year for MFN applied tariff rates shall be 2001 (applicable rates on 

14 November); 

- credit shall be given for autonomous liberalization by developing countries 

provided that the tariff lines were bound on an MFN basis in the WTO since the 

conclusion of the Uruguay Round; 
- all non-ad valorem duties shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the 

basis of a methodology to be determined and bound in ad valorem terms; 

- negotiations shall commence on the basis of the HS96 or HS2002 nomenclature, 

with the results of the negotiations to be finalized in HS2002 nomenclature; 

- the reference period for import data shall be 1999-2001. 

6. We furthermore agree that, as an exception, participants with a binding coverage of nonagricultural tariff lines of less than [35] percent would be exempt from making tariff reductions 

through the formula. Instead, we expect them to bind [100] percent of non-agricultural tariff lines 

at an average level that does not exceed the overall average of bound tariffs for all developing 

countries after full implementation of current concessions. 

7. We recognize that a sectorial tariff component, aiming at elimination or harmonization is 

another key element to achieving the objectives of paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration with regard to the reduction or elimination of tariffs, in particular on products of 

export interest to developing countries. We recognize that participation by all participants will be 

important to that effect. We therefore instruct the Negotiating Group to pursue its discussions on 

such a component, with a view to defining product coverage, participation, and adequate 

provisions of flexibility for developing-country participants. 

8. We agree that developing-country participants shall have longer implementation periods 

for tariff reductions. In addition, they shall be given the following flexibility: 

 a) applying less than formula cuts to up to [10] percent of the tariff lines provided that the 

cuts are no less than half the formula cuts and that these tariff lines do not exceed [10] 

percent of the total value of a Member's imports; or 

 b) keeping, as an exception, tariff lines unbound, or not applying formula cuts for up to 

[5] percent of tariff lines provided they do not exceed [5] percent of the total value of a 

Member's imports. 

We furthermore agree that this flexibility could not be used to exclude entire HS Chapters. 

9. We agree that least-developed country participants shall not be required to apply the 

formula nor participate in the sectorial approach, however, as part of their contribution to this 

round of negotiations, they are expected to substantially increase their level of binding 

commitments. 

10. Furthermore, in recognition of the need to enhance the integration of least-developed 

countries into the multilateral trading system and support the diversification of their production 

and export base, we call upon developed-country participants and other participants who so 

decide, to grant on an autonomous basis duty-free and quota-free market access for nonagricultural products originating from least-developed countries by the year [...]. 

11. We recognize that newly acceded Members shall have recourse to special provisions for 

tariff reductions in order to take into account their extensive market access commitments 

undertaken as part of their accession and that staged tariff reductions are still being implemented 

in many cases. We instruct the Negotiating Group to further elaborate on such provisions. 
12. We agree that pending agreement on core modalities for tariffs, the possibilities of 

supplementary modalities such as zero-for-zero sector elimination, sectorial harmonization, and 

request & offer, should be kept open. 

13. In addition, we ask developed-country participants and other participants who so decide 

to consider the elimination of low duties. 

14. We recognize that NTBs are an integral and equally important part of these negotiations 

and instruct participants to intensify their work on NTBs. In particular, we encourage all 

participants to make notifications on NTBs by 31 October 2004 and to proceed with 

identification, examination, categorization, and ultimately negotiations on NTBs. We take note 

that the modalities for addressing NTBs in these negotiations could include request/offer, 

horizontal, or vertical approaches; and should fully take into account the principle of special and 

differential treatment for developing and least-developed country participants. 

15. We recognize that appropriate studies and capacity building measures shall be an integral 

part of the modalities to be agreed. We also recognize the work that has already been undertaken 

in these areas and ask participants to continue to identify such issues to improve participation in 

the negotiations. 

16. We recognize the challenges that may be faced by non-reciprocal preference beneficiary 

Members and those Members that are at present highly dependent on tariff revenue as a result of 

these negotiations on non-agricultural products. We instruct the Negotiating Group to take into 

consideration, in the course of its work, the particular needs that may arise for the Members 

concerned. 

17. We furthermore encourage the Negotiating Group to work closely with the Committee on 

Trade and Environment in Special Session with a view to addressing the issue of non-agricultural 

environmental goods covered in paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
Annex C 

Recommendations of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services 

(a) Members who have not yet submitted their initial offers must do so as soon as possible. 

(b) A date for the submission of a round of revised offers should be established as soon as 

feasible. 

(c) With a view to providing effective market access to all Members and in order to ensure a 

substantive outcome, Members shall strive to ensure a high quality of offers, particularly 

in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries, with special 

attention to be given to least-developed countries. 

(d) Members shall aim to achieve progressively higher levels of liberalization with no 

a priori exclusion of any service sector or mode of supply and shall give special attention 

to sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries. Members note 

the interest of developing countries, as well as other Members, in Mode 4. 

(e) Members must intensify their efforts to conclude the negotiations on rule-making under 

GATS Articles VI:4, X, XIII and XV in accordance with their respective mandates and 

deadlines. 

(f) Targeted technical assistance should be provided with a view to enabling developing 

countries to participate effectively in the negotiations. 

(g) For the purpose of the Sixth Ministerial meeting, the Special Session of the Council for 

Trade in Services shall review progress in these negotiations and provide a full report to 

the Trade Negotiations Committee, including possible recommendations. 
Annex D 

Modalities for Negotiations on Trade Facilitation 

1. Negotiations shall aim to clarify and improve relevant aspects of Articles V, VIII and X 

of the GATT 1994 with a view to further expediting the movement, release and clearance of 

goods, including goods in transit.4

 Negotiations shall also aim at enhancing technical assistance 

and support for capacity building in this area. The negotiations shall further aim at provisions for 

effective cooperation between customs or any other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation 

and customs compliance issues. 

2. The results of the negotiations shall take fully into account the principle of special and 

differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries. Members recognize that this 

principle should extend beyond the granting of traditional transition periods for implementing 

commitments. In particular, the extent and the timing of entering into commitments shall be 

related to the implementation capacities of developing and least-developed Members. It is further 

agreed that those Members would not be obliged to undertake investments in infrastructure 

projects beyond their means. 

3. Least-developed country Members will only be required to undertake commitments to the 

extent consistent with their individual development, financial and trade needs or their 

administrative and institutional capabilities. 

4. As an integral part of the negotiations, Members shall seek to identify their trade 

facilitation needs and priorities, particularly those of developing and least-developed countries, 

and shall also address the concerns of developing and least-developed countries related to cost 

implications of proposed measures. 

5. It is recognized that the provision of technical assistance and support for capacity 

building is vital for developing and least-developed countries to enable them to fully participate 

in and benefit from the negotiations. Members, in particular developed countries, therefore 

commit themselves to adequately ensure such support and assistance during the negotiations.5

6. Support and assistance should also be provided to help developing and least-developed 

countries implement the commitments resulting from the negotiations, in accordance with their 

nature and scope. In this context, it is recognized that negotiations could lead to certain 

commitments whose implementation would require support for infrastructure development on the 

part of some Members. In these limited cases, developed-country Members will make every 

effort to ensure support and assistance directly related to the nature and scope of the 

commitments in order to allow implementation. It is understood, however, that in cases where 

required support and assistance for such infrastructure is not forthcoming, and where a 

developing or least-developed Member continues to lack the necessary capacity, implementation 

will not be required. While every effort will be made to ensure the necessary support and 

assistance, it is understood that the commitments by developed countries to provide such support 

are not open-ended. 

 

4

 It is understood that this is without prejudice to the possible format of the final result of the negotiations 

and would allow consideration of various forms of outcomes. 

5

 In connection with this paragraph, Members note that paragraph 38 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 

addresses relevant technical assistance and capacity building concerns of Members. 
7. Members agree to review the effectiveness of the support and assistance provided and its 

ability to support the implementation of the results of the negotiations. 

8. In order to make technical assistance and capacity building more effective and 

operational and to ensure better coherence, Members shall invite relevant international 

organizations, including the IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WCO and the World Bank to undertake a 

collaborative effort in this regard. 

9. Due account shall be taken of the relevant work of the WCO and other relevant 

international organizations in this area. 

10. Paragraphs 45-51 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration shall apply to these negotiations. 

At its first meeting after the July session of the General Council, the Trade Negotiations 

Committee shall establish a Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation and appoint its Chair. The 

first meeting of the Negotiating Group shall agree on a work plan and schedule of meetings. 

__________ 
WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/L/641

8 December 2005

(05-5842)

AMENDMENT OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 

Decision of 6 December 2005 

 The General Council; 

 Having regard to paragraph 1 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 

World Trade Organization ("the WTO Agreement"); 

 Conducting the functions of the Ministerial Conference in the interval between meetings 

pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article IV of the WTO Agreement; 

Noting the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 

(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2) and, in particular, the instruction of the Ministerial Conference to the 

Council for TRIPS contained in paragraph 6 of the Declaration to find an expeditious solution to 

the problem of the difficulties that WTO Members with insufficient or no manufacturing 

capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face in making effective use of compulsory 

licensing under the TRIPS Agreement; 

Recognizing, where eligible importing Members seek to obtain supplies under the system 

set out in the proposed amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, the importance of a rapid response 

to those needs consistent with the provisions of the proposed amendment of the TRIPS 

Agreement; 

Recalling paragraph 11 of the General Council Decision of 30 August 2003 on the 

Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public 

Health; 

Having considered the proposal to amend the TRIPS Agreement submitted by the 

Council for TRIPS (IP/C/41); 

Noting the consensus to submit this proposed amendment to the Members for acceptance; 

 Decides as follows: 

1. The Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement attached to this Decision is hereby adopted 

and submitted to the Members for acceptance. 

2. The Protocol shall be open for acceptance by Members until 1 December 2007 or such 

later date as may be decided by the Ministerial Conference. 

3. The Protocol shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 

X of the WTO Agreement. 

_______________ 
ATTACHMENT 

PROTOCOL AMENDING THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 

 Members of the World Trade Organization;

Having regard to the Decision of the General Council in document WT/L/641, adopted 

pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 

Organization ("the WTO Agreement"); 

 Hereby agree as follows: 

 The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the "TRIPS 

Agreement") shall, upon the entry into force of the Protocol pursuant to paragraph 4, be amended 

as set out in the Annex to this Protocol, by inserting Article 31bis after Article 31 and by inserting 

the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement after Article 73. 

 Reservations may not be entered in respect of any of the provisions of this Protocol 

without the consent of the other Members. 

 This Protocol shall be open for acceptance by Members until 1 December 2007 or such 

later date as may be decided by the Ministerial Conference. 

 This Protocol shall enter into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article X of the 

WTO Agreement. 

 This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the World Trade 

Organization who shall promptly furnish to each Member a certified copy thereof and a 

notification of each acceptance thereof pursuant to paragraph 3. 

 This Protocol shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the 

Charter of the United Nations. 

Done at Geneva this sixth day of December two thousand and five, in a single copy in the 

English, French and Spanish languages, each text being authentic. 

_______________ 
ANNEX TO THE PROTOCOL AMENDING THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 

Article 31bis 

1. The obligations of an exporting Member under Article 31(f) shall not apply with respect 

to the grant by it of a compulsory licence to the extent necessary for the purposes of production of 

a pharmaceutical product(s) and its export to an eligible importing Member(s) in accordance with 

the terms set out in paragraph 2 of the Annex to this Agreement. 

2. Where a compulsory licence is granted by an exporting Member under the system set out 

in this Article and the Annex to this Agreement, adequate remuneration pursuant to Article 31(h) 

shall be paid in that Member taking into account the economic value to the importing Member of 

the use that has been authorized in the exporting Member. Where a compulsory licence is 

granted for the same products in the eligible importing Member, the obligation of that Member 

under Article 31(h) shall not apply in respect of those products for which remuneration in 

accordance with the first sentence of this paragraph is paid in the exporting Member. 

3. With a view to harnessing economies of scale for the purposes of enhancing purchasing 

power for, and facilitating the local production of, pharmaceutical products: where a developing 

or least-developed country WTO Member is a party to a regional trade agreement within the 

meaning of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and the Decision of 28 November 1979 on 

Differential and More Favourable Treatment Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing 

Countries (L/4903), at least half of the current membership of which is made up of countries 

presently on the United Nations list of least-developed countries, the obligation of that Member 

under Article 31(f) shall not apply to the extent necessary to enable a pharmaceutical product 

produced or imported under a compulsory licence in that Member to be exported to the markets 

of those other developing or least-developed country parties to the regional trade agreement that 

share the health problem in question. It is understood that this will not prejudice the territorial 

nature of the patent rights in question. 

4. Members shall not challenge any measures taken in conformity with the provisions of 

this Article and the Annex to this Agreement under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII 

of GATT 1994. 

5. This Article and the Annex to this Agreement are without prejudice to the rights, 

obligations and flexibilities that Members have under the provisions of this Agreement other than 

paragraphs (f) and (h) of Article 31, including those reaffirmed by the Declaration on the TRIPS 

Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2), and to their interpretation. They are also 

without prejudice to the extent to which pharmaceutical products produced under a compulsory 

licence can be exported under the provisions of Article 31(f). 
ANNEX TO THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 

1. For the purposes of Article 31bis and this Annex: 

(a) "pharmaceutical product" means any patented product, or product manufactured 

through a patented process, of the pharmaceutical sector needed to address the 

public health problems as recognized in paragraph 1 of the Declaration on the 

TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2). It is understood 

that active ingredients necessary for its manufacture and diagnostic kits needed 

for its use would be included1

; 

(b) "eligible importing Member" means any least-developed country Member, and 

any other Member that has made a notification2

 to the Council for TRIPS of its 

intention to use the system set out in Article 31bis and this Annex ("system") as 

an importer, it being understood that a Member may notify at any time that it will 

use the system in whole or in a limited way, for example only in the case of a 

national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of 

public non-commercial use. It is noted that some Members will not use the 

system as importing Members3

 and that some other Members have stated that, if 

they use the system, it would be in no more than situations of national emergency 

or other circumstances of extreme urgency; 

(c) "exporting Member" means a Member using the system to produce 

pharmaceutical products for, and export them to, an eligible importing Member. 

2. The terms referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 31bis are that: 

(a) the eligible importing Member(s)4

 has made a notification2 to the Council for 

TRIPS, that: 

(i) specifies the names and expected quantities of the product(s) needed5

; 

(ii) confirms that the eligible importing Member in question, other than a 

least-developed country Member, has established that it has insufficient 

or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector for the 

product(s) in question in one of the ways set out in the Appendix to this 

Annex; and 

(iii) confirms that, where a pharmaceutical product is patented in its territory, 

it has granted or intends to grant a compulsory licence in accordance 

 

1

 This subparagraph is without prejudice to subparagraph 1(b). 

2

 It is understood that this notification does not need to be approved by a WTO body in order to use the 

system. 

3

 Australia, Canada, the European Communities with, for the purposes of Article 31bis and this Annex, its 

member States, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States. 4

 Joint notifications providing the information required under this subparagraph may be made by the 

regional organizations referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 31bis on behalf of eligible importing Members 

using the system that are parties to them, with the agreement of those parties. 5

 The notification will be made available publicly by the WTO Secretariat through a page on the WTO 

website dedicated to the system. 
with Articles 31 and 31bis of this Agreement and the provisions of this 

Annex6

; 

(b) the compulsory licence issued by the exporting Member under the system shall 

contain the following conditions: 

(i) only the amount necessary to meet the needs of the eligible importing 

Member(s) may be manufactured under the licence and the entirety of 

this production shall be exported to the Member(s) which has notified its 

needs to the Council for TRIPS; 

(ii) products produced under the licence shall be clearly identified as being 

produced under the system through specific labelling or marking. 

Suppliers should distinguish such products through special packaging 

and/or special colouring/shaping of the products themselves, provided 

that such distinction is feasible and does not have a significant impact on 

price; and 

(iii) before shipment begins, the licensee shall post on a website7

 the 

following information: 

- the quantities being supplied to each destination as referred to in 

indent (i) above; and 

- the distinguishing features of the product(s) referred to in indent (ii) 

above; 

(c) the exporting Member shall notify8

 the Council for TRIPS of the grant of the 

licence, including the conditions attached to it.9

 The information provided shall 

include the name and address of the licensee, the product(s) for which the licence 

has been granted, the quantity(ies) for which it has been granted, the country(ies) 

to which the product(s) is (are) to be supplied and the duration of the licence. 

The notification shall also indicate the address of the website referred to in 

subparagraph (b)(iii) above. 

3. In order to ensure that the products imported under the system are used for the public 

health purposes underlying their importation, eligible importing Members shall take reasonable 

measures within their means, proportionate to their administrative capacities and to the risk of 

trade diversion to prevent re-exportation of the products that have actually been imported into 

their territories under the system. In the event that an eligible importing Member that is a 

developing country Member or a least-developed country Member experiences difficulty in 

implementing this provision, developed country Members shall provide, on request and on 

mutually agreed terms and conditions, technical and financial cooperation in order to facilitate its 

implementation. 

 

6

 This subparagraph is without prejudice to Article 66.1 of this Agreement. 7

 The licensee may use for this purpose its own website or, with the assistance of the WTO Secretariat, the 

page on the WTO website dedicated to the system. 

8

 It is understood that this notification does not need to be approved by a WTO body in order to use the 

system. 

9

 The notification will be made available publicly by the WTO Secretariat through a page on the WTO 

website dedicated to the system. 
4. Members shall ensure the availability of effective legal means to prevent the importation 

into, and sale in, their territories of products produced under the system and diverted to their 

markets inconsistently with its provisions, using the means already required to be available under 

this Agreement. If any Member considers that such measures are proving insufficient for this 

purpose, the matter may be reviewed in the Council for TRIPS at the request of that Member. 

5. With a view to harnessing economies of scale for the purposes of enhancing purchasing 

power for, and facilitating the local production of, pharmaceutical products, it is recognized that 

the development of systems providing for the grant of regional patents to be applicable in the 

Members described in paragraph 3 of Article 31bis should be promoted. To this end, developed 

country Members undertake to provide technical cooperation in accordance with Article 67 of 

this Agreement, including in conjunction with other relevant intergovernmental organizations. 

6. Members recognize the desirability of promoting the transfer of technology and capacity 

building in the pharmaceutical sector in order to overcome the problem faced by Members with 

insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector. To this end, eligible 

importing Members and exporting Members are encouraged to use the system in a way which 

would promote this objective. Members undertake to cooperate in paying special attention to the 

transfer of technology and capacity building in the pharmaceutical sector in the work to be 

undertaken pursuant to Article 66.2 of this Agreement, paragraph 7 of the Declaration on the 

TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and any other relevant work of the Council for TRIPS. 

7. The Council for TRIPS shall review annually the functioning of the system with a view 

to ensuring its effective operation and shall annually report on its operation to the General 

Council. 
APPENDIX TO THE ANNEX TO THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 

Assessment of Manufacturing Capacities in the Pharmaceutical Sector

 Least-developed country Members are deemed to have insufficient or no manufacturing 

capacities in the pharmaceutical sector. 

 For other eligible importing Members insufficient or no manufacturing capacities for the 

product(s) in question may be established in either of the following ways: 

 (i) the Member in question has established that it has no manufacturing 

capacity in the pharmaceutical sector; 

 or 

 (ii) where the Member has some manufacturing capacity in this sector, it has 

examined this capacity and found that, excluding any capacity owned or 

controlled by the patent owner, it is currently insufficient for the purposes of 

meeting its needs. When it is established that such capacity has become 

sufficient to meet the Member's needs, the system shall no longer apply. 

__________
WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/MIN(05)/DEC

22 December 2005

(05-6248)

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE

Sixth Session

Hong Kong, 13 - 18 December 2005

DOHA WORK PROGRAMME 

Ministerial Declaration 

Adopted on 18 December 2005

1. We reaffirm the Declarations and Decisions we adopted at Doha, as well as the Decision 

adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, and our full commitment to give effect to 

them. We renew our resolve to complete the Doha Work Programme fully and to conclude the 

negotiations launched at Doha successfully in 2006. 

2. We emphasize the central importance of the development dimension in every aspect of 

the Doha Work Programme and recommit ourselves to making it a meaningful reality, in terms 

both of the results of the negotiations on market access and rule-making and of the specific 

development-related issues set out below. 

3. In pursuance of these objectives, we agree as follows: 

Agriculture 

negotiations

4. We reaffirm our commitment to the mandate on agriculture as set out in 

paragraph 13 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and to the Framework adopted by 

the General Council on 1 August 2004. We take note of the report by the Chairman 

of the Special Session on his own responsibility (TN/AG/21, contained in Annex 

A). We welcome the progress made by the Special Session of the Committee on 

Agriculture since 2004 and recorded therein.

5. On domestic support, there will be three bands for reductions in Final 

Bound Total AMS and in the overall cut in trade-distorting domestic support, with 

higher linear cuts in higher bands. In both cases, the Member with the highest level 

of permitted support will be in the top band, the two Members with the second and 

third highest levels of support will be in the middle band and all other Members, 

including all developing country Members, will be in the bottom band. In addition, 

developed country Members in the lower bands with high relative levels of Final 

Bound Total AMS will make an additional effort in AMS reduction. We also note 

that there has been some convergence concerning the reductions in Final Bound 

Total AMS, the overall cut in trade-distorting domestic support and in both 

product-specific and non product-specific de minimis limits. Disciplines will be 

developed to achieve effective cuts in trade-distorting domestic support consistent 

with the Framework. The overall reduction in trade-distorting domestic support 
will still need to be made even if the sum of the reductions in Final Bound Total 

AMS, de minimis and Blue Box payments would otherwise be less than that overall 

reduction. Developing country Members with no AMS commitments will be 

exempt from reductions in de minimis and the overall cut in trade-distorting 

domestic support. Green Box criteria will be reviewed in line with paragraph 16 of 

the Framework, inter alia, to ensure that programmes of developing country 

Members that cause not more than minimal trade-distortion are effectively covered.

6. We agree to ensure the parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidies 

and disciplines on all export measures with equivalent effect to be completed by the 

end of 2013. This will be achieved in a progressive and parallel manner, to be 

specified in the modalities, so that a substantial part is realized by the end of the 

first half of the implementation period. We note emerging convergence on some 

elements of disciplines with respect to export credits, export credit guarantees or 

insurance programmes with repayment periods of 180 days and below. We agree 

that such programmes should be self-financing, reflecting market consistency, and 

that the period should be of a sufficiently short duration so as not to effectively 

circumvent real commercially-oriented discipline. As a means of ensuring that 

trade-distorting practices of STEs are eliminated, disciplines relating to exporting 

STEs will extend to the future use of monopoly powers so that such powers cannot 

be exercised in any way that would circumvent the direct disciplines on STEs on 

export subsidies, government financing and the underwriting of losses. On food 

aid, we reconfirm our commitment to maintain an adequate level and to take into 

account the interests of food aid recipient countries. To this end, a "safe box" for 

bona fide food aid will be provided to ensure that there is no unintended 

impediment to dealing with emergency situations. Beyond that, we will ensure 

elimination of commercial displacement. To this end, we will agree effective 

disciplines on in-kind food aid, monetization and re-exports so that there can be no 

loop-hole for continuing export subsidization. The disciplines on export credits, 

export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, exporting state trading 

enterprises and food aid will be completed by 30 April 2006 as part of the 

modalities, including appropriate provision in favour of least-developed and net 

food-importing developing countries as provided for in paragraph 4 of the 

Marrakesh Decision. The date above for the elimination of all forms of export 

subsidies, together with the agreed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed 

only upon the completion of the modalities. Developing country Members will 

continue to benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on 

Agriculture for five years after the end-date for elimination of all forms of export 

subsidies.

7. On market access, we note the progress made on ad valorem equivalents. 

We adopt four bands for structuring tariff cuts, recognizing that we need now to 

agree on the relevant thresholds – including those applicable for developing 

country Members. We recognize the need to agree on treatment of sensitive 

products, taking into account all the elements involved. We also note that there 

have been some recent movements on the designation and treatment of Special 

Products and elements of the Special Safeguard Mechanism. Developing country 

Members will have the flexibility to self-designate an appropriate number of tariff 

lines as Special Products guided by indicators based on the criteria of food security, 

livelihood security and rural development. Developing country Members will also 

have the right to have recourse to a Special Safeguard Mechanism based on import 
quantity and price triggers, with precise arrangements to be further defined. 

Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism shall be an integral part of 

the modalities and the outcome of negotiations in agriculture.

8. On other elements of special and differential treatment, we note in 

particular the consensus that exists in the Framework on several issues in all three 

pillars of domestic support, export competition and market access and that some 

progress has been made on other special and differential treatment issues.

9. We reaffirm that nothing we have agreed here compromises the agreement 

already reflected in the Framework on other issues including tropical products and 

products of particular importance to the diversification of production from the 

growing of illicit narcotic crops, long-standing preferences and preference erosion.

10. However, we recognize that much remains to be done in order to establish 

modalities and to conclude the negotiations. Therefore, we agree to intensify work 

on all outstanding issues to fulfil the Doha objectives, in particular, we are resolved 

to establish modalities no later than 30 April 2006 and to submit comprehensive 

draft Schedules based on these modalities no later than 31 July 2006.

Cotton 11. We recall the mandate given by the Members in the Decision adopted by 

the General Council on 1 August 2004 to address cotton ambitiously, expeditiously 

and specifically, within the agriculture negotiations in relation to all trade-distorting 

policies affecting the sector in all three pillars of market access, domestic support 

and export competition, as specified in the Doha text and the July 2004 Framework 

text. We note the work already undertaken in the Sub-Committee on Cotton and 

the proposals made with regard to this matter. Without prejudice to Members' 

current WTO rights and obligations, including those flowing from actions taken by 

the Dispute Settlement Body, we reaffirm our commitment to ensure having an 

explicit decision on cotton within the agriculture negotiations and through the SubCommittee on Cotton ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically as follows:

– All forms of export subsidies for cotton will be eliminated by developed 

countries in 2006.

– On market access, developed countries will give duty and quota free access 

for cotton exports from least-developed countries (LDCs) from the 

commencement of the implementation period.

– Members agree that the objective is that, as an outcome for the 

negotiations, trade distorting domestic subsidies for cotton production be 

reduced more ambitiously than under whatever general formula is agreed 

and that it should be implemented over a shorter period of time than 

generally applicable. We commit ourselves to give priority in the 

negotiations to reach such an outcome.

12. With regard to the development assistance aspects of cotton, we welcome 

the Consultative Framework process initiated by the Director-General to implement 

the decisions on these aspects pursuant to paragraph 1.b of the Decision adopted by 

the General Council on 1 August 2004. We take note of his Periodic Reports and 

the positive evolution of development assistance noted therein. We urge the 

Director-General to further intensify his consultative efforts with bilateral donors 
and with multilateral and regional institutions, with emphasis on improved 

coherence, coordination and enhanced implementation and to explore the 

possibility of establishing through such institutions a mechanism to deal with 

income declines in the cotton sector until the end of subsidies. Noting the 

importance of achieving enhanced efficiency and competitiveness in the cotton 

producing process, we urge the development community to further scale up its 

cotton-specific assistance and to support the efforts of the Director-General. In this 

context, we urge Members to promote and support South-South cooperation, 

including transfer of technology. We welcome the domestic reform efforts by 

African cotton producers aimed at enhancing productivity and efficiency, and 

encourage them to deepen this process. We reaffirm the complementarity of the 

trade policy and development assistance aspects of cotton. We invite the DirectorGeneral to furnish a third Periodic Report to our next Session with updates, at 

appropriate intervals in the meantime, to the General Council, while keeping the 

Sub-Committee on Cotton fully informed of progress. Finally, as regards follow up 

and monitoring, we request the Director-General to set up an appropriate follow-up 

and monitoring mechanism.

NAMA 

negotiations

13. We reaffirm our commitment to the mandate for negotiations on market 

access for non-agricultural products as set out in paragraph 16 of the Doha 

Ministerial Declaration. We also reaffirm all the elements of the NAMA 

Framework adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004. We take note of the 

report by the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access on his own 

responsibility (TN/MA/16, contained in Annex B). We welcome the progress 

made by the Negotiating Group on Market Access since 2004 and recorded therein.

14. We adopt a Swiss Formula with coefficients at levels which shall inter 

alia: 

 Reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or 

elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation, in particular on 

products of export interest to developing countries; and

 Take fully into account the special needs and interests of developing 

countries, including through less than full reciprocity in reduction 

commitments.

We instruct the Negotiating Group to finalize its structure and details as soon as 

possible.

15. We reaffirm the importance of special and differential treatment and less 

than full reciprocity in reduction commitments, including paragraph 8 of the 

NAMA Framework, as integral parts of the modalities. We instruct the Negotiating 

Group to finalize its details as soon as possible.

16. In furtherance of paragraph 7 of the NAMA Framework, we recognize that 

Members are pursuing sectoral initiatives. To this end, we instruct the Negotiating 

Group to review proposals with a view to identifying those which could garner 

sufficient participation to be realized. Participation should be on a non-mandatory 

basis.

17. For the purpose of the second indent of paragraph 5 of the NAMA 
Framework, we adopt a non-linear mark-up approach to establish base rates for 

commencing tariff reductions. We instruct the Negotiating Group to finalize its 

details as soon as possible.

18. We take note of the progress made to convert non ad valorem duties to 

ad valorem equivalents on the basis of an agreed methodology as contained in 

JOB(05)/166/Rev.1.

19. We take note of the level of common understanding reached on the issue of 

product coverage and direct the Negotiating Group to resolve differences on the 

limited issues that remain as quickly as possible.

20. As a supplement to paragraph 16 of the NAMA Framework, we recognize 

the challenges that may be faced by non-reciprocal preference beneficiary 

Members as a consequence of the MFN liberalization that will result from these 

negotiations. We instruct the Negotiating Group to intensify work on the 

assessment of the scope of the problem with a view to finding possible solutions.

21. We note the concerns raised by small, vulnerable economies, and instruct 

the Negotiating Group to establish ways to provide flexibilities for these Members 

without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.

22. We note that the Negotiating Group has made progress in the 

identification, categorization and examination of notified NTBs. We also take note 

that Members are developing bilateral, vertical and horizontal approaches to the 

NTB negotiations, and that some of the NTBs are being addressed in other fora 

including other Negotiating Groups. We recognize the need for specific 

negotiating proposals and encourage participants to make such submissions as 

quickly as possible.

23. However, we recognize that much remains to be done in order to establish 

modalities and to conclude the negotiations. Therefore, we agree to intensify work 

on all outstanding issues to fulfil the Doha objectives, in particular, we are resolved 

to establish modalities no later than 30 April 2006 and to submit comprehensive 

draft Schedules based on these modalities no later than 31 July 2006.

Balance 

between 

Agriculture and 

NAMA

24. We recognize that it is important to advance the development objectives of 

this Round through enhanced market access for developing countries in both 

Agriculture and NAMA. To that end, we instruct our negotiators to ensure that 

there is a comparably high level of ambition in market access for Agriculture and 

NAMA. This ambition is to be achieved in a balanced and proportionate manner 

consistent with the principle of special and differential treatment.

Services 

negotiations

25. The negotiations on trade in services shall proceed to their conclusion with 

a view to promoting the economic growth of all trading partners and the 

development of developing and least-developed countries, and with due respect for 

the right of Members to regulate. In this regard, we recall and reaffirm the 

objectives and principles stipulated in the GATS, the Doha Ministerial Declaration, 

the Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services adopted 

by the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services on 28 March 2001 and 
the Modalities for the Special Treatment for Least-Developed Country Members in 

the Negotiations on Trade in Services adopted on 3 September 2003, as well as 

Annex C of the Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004.

26. We urge all Members to participate actively in these negotiations towards 

achieving a progressively higher level of liberalization of trade in services, with 

appropriate flexibility for individual developing countries as provided for in 

Article XIX of the GATS. Negotiations shall have regard to the size of economies 

of individual Members, both overall and in individual sectors. We recognize the 

particular economic situation of LDCs, including the difficulties they face, and 

acknowledge that they are not expected to undertake new commitments.

27. We are determined to intensify the negotiations in accordance with the 

above principles and the Objectives, Approaches and Timelines set out in Annex C 

to this document with a view to expanding the sectoral and modal coverage of 

commitments and improving their quality. In this regard, particular attention will 

be given to sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries.

Rules 

negotiations

28. We recall the mandates in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration and reaffirm our commitment to the negotiations on rules, as we set 

forth in Annex D to this document.

TRIPS 

negotiations

29. We take note of the report of the Chairman of the Special Session of the 

Council for TRIPS setting out the progress in the negotiations on the establishment 

of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications 

for wines and spirits, as mandated in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement and 

paragraph 18 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, contained in document 

TN/IP/14, and agree to intensify these negotiations in order to complete them 

within the overall time-frame for the conclusion of the negotiations that were 

foreseen in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.

Environment 

negotiations

30. We reaffirm the mandate in paragraph 31 of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration aimed at enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and 

environment and welcome the significant work undertaken in the Committee on 

Trade and Environment (CTE) in Special Session. We instruct Members to 

intensify the negotiations, without prejudging their outcome, on all parts of 

paragraph 31 to fulfil the mandate.

31. We recognize the progress in the work under paragraph 31(i) based on 

Members' submissions on the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific 

trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). We 

further recognize the work undertaken under paragraph 31(ii) towards developing 

effective procedures for regular information exchange between MEA Secretariats 

and the relevant WTO committees, and criteria for the granting of observer status.

32. We recognize that recently more work has been carried out under 

paragraph 31(iii) through numerous submissions by Members and discussions in 

the CTE in Special Session, including technical discussions, which were also held 

in informal information exchange sessions without prejudice to Members' 

positions. We instruct Members to complete the work expeditiously under 
paragraph 31(iii).

Trade 

Facilitation

negotiations

33. We recall and reaffirm the mandate and modalities for negotiations on 

Trade Facilitation contained in Annex D of the Decision adopted by the General 

Council on 1 August 2004. We note with appreciation the report of the Negotiating 

Group, attached in Annex E to this document, and the comments made by our 

delegations on that report as reflected in document TN/TF/M/11. We endorse the 

recommendations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the report.

DSU 

negotiations

34. We take note of the progress made in the Dispute Settlement 

Understanding negotiations as reflected in the report by the Chairman of the 

Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body to the Trade Negotiations 

Committee (TNC) and direct the Special Session to continue to work towards a 

rapid conclusion of the negotiations.

S&D treatment 35. We reaffirm that provisions for special and differential (S&D) treatment 

are an integral part of the WTO Agreements. We renew our determination to fulfil 

the mandate contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and in 

the Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, that all S&D 

treatment provisions be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making 

them more precise, effective and operational.

36. We take note of the work done on the Agreement-specific proposals, 

especially the five LDC proposals. We agree to adopt the decisions contained in 

Annex F to this document. However, we also recognize that substantial work still 

remains to be done. We commit ourselves to address the development interests and 

concerns of developing countries, especially the LDCs, in the multilateral trading 

system, and we recommit ourselves to complete the task we set ourselves at Doha. 

We accordingly instruct the Committee on Trade and Development in Special 

Session to expeditiously complete the review of all the outstanding Agreementspecific proposals and report to the General Council, with clear recommendations 

for a decision, by December 2006.

37. We are concerned at the lack of progress on the Category II proposals that 

had been referred to other WTO bodies and negotiating groups. We instruct these 

bodies to expeditiously complete the consideration of these proposals and report 

periodically to the General Council, with the objective of ensuring that clear 

recommendations for a decision are made no later than December 2006. We also 

instruct the Special Session to continue to coordinate its efforts with these bodies, 

so as to ensure that this work is completed on time.

38. We further instruct the Special Session, within the parameters of the Doha 

mandate, to resume work on all other outstanding issues, including on the crosscutting issues, the monitoring mechanism, and the incorporation of S&D treatment 

into the architecture of WTO rules, and report on a regular basis to the General 

Council.

Implementation 39. We reiterate the instruction in the Decision adopted by the General Council 

on 1 August 2004 to the TNC, negotiating bodies and other WTO bodies concerned 

to redouble their efforts to find appropriate solutions as a priority to outstanding 
implementation-related issues. We take note of the work undertaken by the 

Director-General in his consultative process on all outstanding implementation 

issues under paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, including on 

issues related to the extension of the protection of geographical indications 

provided for in Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines 

and spirits and those related to the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and 

the Convention on Biological Diversity. We request the Director-General, without 

prejudice to the positions of Members, to intensify his consultative process on all 

outstanding implementation issues under paragraph 12(b), if need be by appointing 

Chairpersons of concerned WTO bodies as his Friends and/or by holding dedicated 

consultations. The Director-General shall report to each regular meeting of the 

TNC and the General Council. The Council shall review progress and take any 

appropriate action no later than 31 July 2006.

TRIPS &

Public Health

40. We reaffirm the importance we attach to the General Council Decision of 

30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on 

the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, and to an amendment to the TRIPS 

Agreement replacing its provisions. In this regard, we welcome the work that has 

taken place in the Council for TRIPS and the Decision of the General Council of 

6 December 2005 on an Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement.

Small 

Economies

41. We reaffirm our commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies 

and urge Members to adopt specific measures that would facilitate the fuller 

integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system, 

without creating a sub-category of WTO Members. We take note of the report of 

the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session on the Work 

Programme on Small Economies to the General Council and agree to the 

recommendations on future work. We instruct the Committee on Trade and 

Development, under the overall responsibility of the General Council, to continue 

the work in the Dedicated Session and to monitor progress of the small economies' 

proposals in the negotiating and other bodies, with the aim of providing responses 

to the trade-related issues of small economies as soon as possible but no later than 

31 December 2006. We instruct the General Council to report on progress and 

action taken, together with any further recommendations as appropriate, to our next 

Session.

Trade, Debt & 

Finance

42. We take note of the report transmitted by the General Council on the work 

undertaken and progress made in the examination of the relationship between trade, 

debt and finance and on the consideration of any possible recommendations on 

steps that might be taken within the mandate and competence of the WTO as 

provided in paragraph 36 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and agree that, 

building on the work carried out to date, this work shall continue on the basis of the 

Doha mandate. We instruct the General Council to report further to our next 

Session.

Trade & 

Transfer of 

Technology

43. We take note of the report transmitted by the General Council on the work 

undertaken and progress made in the examination of the relationship between trade 

and transfer of technology and on the consideration of any possible 

recommendations on steps that might be taken within the mandate of the WTO to 

increase flows of technology to developing countries. Recognizing the relevance 
of the relationship between trade and transfer of technology to the development 

dimension of the Doha Work Programme and building on the work carried out to 

date, we agree that this work shall continue on the basis of the mandate contained 

in paragraph 37 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. We instruct the General 

Council to report further to our next Session.

Doha 

paragraph 19

44. We take note of the work undertaken by the Council for TRIPS pursuant to 

paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and agree that this work shall 

continue on the basis of paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the 

progress made in the Council for TRIPS to date. The General Council shall report 

on its work in this regard to our next Session.

TRIPS nonviolation and 

situation 

complaints

45. We take note of the work done by the Council for Trade-Related Aspects 

of Intellectual Property Rights pursuant to paragraph 11.1 of the Doha Decision on 

Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns and paragraph 1.h of the Decision 

adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, and direct it to continue its 

examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for 

under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make 

recommendations to our next Session. It is agreed that, in the meantime, Members 

will not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.

E-commerce 46. We take note of the reports from the General Council and subsidiary bodies 

on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, and that the examination of 

issues under the Work Programme is not yet complete. We agree to reinvigorate 

that work, including the development-related issues under the Work Programme 

and discussions on the trade treatment, inter alia, of electronically delivered 

software. We agree to maintain the current institutional arrangements for the Work 

Programme. We declare that Members will maintain their current practice of not 

imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until our next Session.

LDCs 47. We reaffirm our commitment to effectively and meaningfully integrate 

LDCs into the multilateral trading system and shall continue to implement the 

WTO Work Programme for LDCs adopted in February 2002. We acknowledge the 

seriousness of the concerns and interests of the LDCs in the negotiations as 

expressed in the Livingstone Declaration, adopted by their Ministers in June 2005. 

We take note that issues of interest to LDCs are being addressed in all areas of 

negotiations and we welcome the progress made since the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration as reflected in the Decision adopted by the General Council on 

1 August 2004. Building upon the commitment in the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration, developed-country Members, and developing-country Members 

declaring themselves in a position to do so, agree to implement duty-free and 

quota-free market access for products originating from LDCs as provided for in 

Annex F to this document. Furthermore, in accordance with our commitment in the 

Doha Ministerial Declaration, Members shall take additional measures to provide 

effective market access, both at the border and otherwise, including simplified and 

transparent rules of origin so as to facilitate exports from LDCs. In the services 

negotiations, Members shall implement the LDC modalities and give priority to the 

sectors and modes of supply of export interest to LDCs, particularly with regard to 

movement of service providers under Mode 4. We agree to facilitate and accelerate 

negotiations with acceding LDCs based on the accession guidelines adopted by the 
General Council in December 2002. We commit to continue giving our attention 

and priority to concluding the ongoing accession proceedings as rapidly as 

possible. We welcome the Decision by the TRIPS Council to extend the transition 

period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. We reaffirm our commitment 

to enhance effective trade-related technical assistance and capacity building to 

LDCs on a priority basis in helping to overcome their limited human and 

institutional trade-related capacity to enable LDCs to maximize the benefits 

resulting from the Doha Development Agenda (DDA).

Integrated 

Framework

48. We continue to attach high priority to the effective implementation of the 

Integrated Framework (IF) and reiterate our endorsement of the IF as a viable 

instrument for LDCs' trade development, building on its principles of country 

ownership and partnership. We highlight the importance of contributing to 

reducing their supply side constraints. We reaffirm our commitment made at Doha, 

and recognize the urgent need to make the IF more effective and timely in 

addressing the trade-related development needs of LDCs.

49. In this regard, we are encouraged by the endorsement by the Development 

Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) at its 

autumn 2005 meeting of an enhanced IF. We welcome the establishment of a Task 

Force by the Integrated Framework Working Group as endorsed by the IF Steering 

Committee (IFSC) as well as an agreement on the three elements which together 

constitute an enhanced IF. The Task Force, composed of donor and LDC 

members, will provide recommendations to the IFSC by April 2006. The enhanced 

IF shall enter into force no later than 31 December 2006.

50.We agree that the Task Force, in line with its Mandate and based on the three 

elements agreed to, shall provide recommendations on how the implementation of 

the IF can be improved, inter alia, by considering ways to:

1. provide increased, predictable, and additional funding on a multi-year 

basis;

2. strengthen the IF in-country, including through mainstreaming trade into 

national development plans and poverty reduction strategies; more 

effective follow-up to diagnostic trade integration studies and 

implementation of action matrices; and achieving greater and more 

effective coordination amongst donors and IF stakeholders, including 

beneficiaries;

3. improve the IF decision-making and management structure to ensure an 

effective and timely delivery of the increased financial resources and 

programmes.

51. We welcome the increased commitment already expressed by some 

Members in the run-up to, and during, this Session. We urge other development 

partners to significantly increase their contribution to the IF Trust Fund. We also 

urge the six IF core agencies to continue to cooperate closely in the implementation 

of the IF, to increase their investments in this initiative and to intensify their 

assistance in trade-related infrastructure, private sector development and institution 

building to help LDCs expand and diversify their export base.
Technical 

Cooperation

52. We note with appreciation the substantial increase in trade-related technical 

assistance since our Fourth Session, which reflects the enhanced commitment of 

Members to address the increased demand for technical assistance, through both 

bilateral and multilateral programmes. We note the progress made in the current 

approach to planning and implementation of WTO's programmes, as embodied in 

the Technical Assistance and Training Plans adopted by Members, as well as the 

improved quality of those programmes. We note that a strategic review of WTO's 

technical assistance is to be carried out by Members, and expect that in future 

planning and implementation of training and technical assistance, the conclusions 

and recommendations of the review will be taken into account, as appropriate.

53. We reaffirm the priorities established in paragraph 38 of the Doha 

Ministerial Declaration for the delivery of technical assistance and urge the 

Director-General to ensure that programmes focus accordingly on the needs of 

beneficiary countries and reflect the priorities and mandates adopted by Members. 

We endorse the application of appropriate needs assessment mechanisms and 

support the efforts to enhance ownership by beneficiaries, in order to ensure the 

sustainability of trade-related capacity building. We invite the Director-General to 

reinforce the partnerships and coordination with other agencies and regional bodies 

in the design and implementation of technical assistance programmes, so that all 

dimensions of trade-related capacity building are addressed, in a manner coherent 

with the programmes of other providers. In particular, we encourage all Members 

to cooperate with the International Trade Centre, which complements WTO work 

by providing a platform for business to interact with trade negotiators, and practical 

advice for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to benefit from the 

multilateral trading system. In this connection, we note the role of the Joint 

Integrated Technical Assistance Programme (JITAP) in building the capacity of 

participating countries.

54. In order to continue progress in the effective and timely delivery of traderelated capacity building, in line with the priority Members attach to it, the relevant 

structures of the Secretariat should be strengthened and its resources enhanced. We 

reaffirm our commitment to ensure secure and adequate levels of funding for traderelated capacity building, including in the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust 

Fund, to conclude the Doha Work Programme and implement its results.

Commodity 

Issues

55. We recognize the dependence of several developing and least-developed 

countries on the export of commodities and the problems they face because of the 

adverse impact of the long-term decline and sharp fluctuation in the prices of these 

commodities. We take note of the work undertaken in the Committee on Trade and 

Development on commodity issues, and instruct the Committee, within its mandate, 

to intensify its work in cooperation with other relevant international organizations 

and report regularly to the General Council with possible recommendations. We 

agree that the particular trade-related concerns of developing and least-developed 

countries related to commodities shall also be addressed in the course of the 

agriculture and NAMA negotiations. We further acknowledge that these countries 

may need support and technical assistance to overcome the particular problems 

they face, and urge Members and relevant international organizations to consider 

favourably requests by these countries for support and assistance.
Coherence 56. We welcome the Director-General's actions to strengthen the WTO's 

cooperation with the IMF and the World Bank in the context of the WTO's 

Marrakesh mandate on Coherence, and invite him to continue to work closely with 

the General Council in this area. We value the General Council meetings that are 

held with the participation of the heads of the IMF and the World Bank to advance 

our Coherence mandate. We agree to continue building on that experience and 

expand the debate on international trade and development policymaking and interagency cooperation with the participation of relevant UN agencies. In that regard, 

we note the discussions taking place in the Working Group on Trade, Debt and 

Finance on, inter alia, the issue of Coherence, and look forward to any possible 

recommendations it may make on steps that might be taken within the mandate and 

competence of the WTO on this issue.

Aid for Trade 57. We welcome the discussions of Finance and Development Ministers in 

various fora, including the Development Committee of the World Bank and IMF, 

that have taken place this year on expanding Aid for Trade. Aid for Trade should 

aim to help developing countries, particularly LDCs, to build the supply-side 

capacity and trade-related infrastructure that they need to assist them to implement 

and benefit from WTO Agreements and more broadly to expand their trade. Aid 

for Trade cannot be a substitute for the development benefits that will result from a 

successful conclusion to the DDA, particularly on market access. However, it can 

be a valuable complement to the DDA. We invite the Director-General to create a 

task force that shall provide recommendations on how to operationalize Aid for 

Trade. The Task Force will provide recommendations to the General Council by 

July 2006 on how Aid for Trade might contribute most effectively to the 

development dimension of the DDA. We also invite the Director-General to 

consult with Members as well as with the IMF and World Bank, relevant 

international organisations and the regional development banks with a view to 

reporting to the General Council on appropriate mechanisms to secure additional 

financial resources for Aid for Trade, where appropriate through grants and 

concessional loans.

Recentlyacceded 

Members

58. We recognize the special situation of recently-acceded Members who have 

undertaken extensive market access commitments at the time of accession. This 

situation will be taken into account in the negotiations.

Accessions 59. We reaffirm our strong commitment to making the WTO truly global in 

scope and membership. We welcome those new Members who have completed 

their accession processes since our last Session, namely Nepal, Cambodia and 

Saudi Arabia. We note with satisfaction that Tonga has completed its accession 

negotiations to the WTO. These accessions further strengthen the rules-based 

multilateral trading system. We continue to attach priority to the 29 ongoing 

accessions with a view to concluding them as rapidly and smoothly as possible. 

We stress the importance of facilitating and accelerating the accession negotiations 

of least-developed countries, taking due account of the guidelines on LDC 

accession adopted by the General Council in December 2002.

_______________ 
Annex A 

Agriculture 

Report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture to the TNC

1. The present report has been prepared on my own responsibility. I have done so in response to the 

direction of Members as expressed at the informal Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture on 11 

November 2005. At that meeting, following the informal Heads of Delegation meeting the preceding day, 

Members made it crystal clear that they sought from me at this point an objective factual summary of 

where the negotiations have reached at this time. It was clear from that meeting that Members did not 

expect or desire anything that purported to be more than that. In particular, it was clear that, following the 

decision at the Heads of Delegation meeting that full modalities will not be achieved at Hong Kong, 

Members did not want anything that suggested implicit or explicit agreement where it did not exist. 

2. This is not, of course, the kind of paper that I would have chosen or preferred to have prepared at 

this point. Ideally, my task should have been to work with Members to generate a draft text of modalities. 

But this text reflects the reality of the present situation. There will be – because there must be if we are to 

conclude these negotiations – such a draft text in the future. I look at this now as a task postponed, but 

the precise timing of this is in the hands of Members. 

3. As for this paper, it is precisely what it is described to be. No more, no less. It is the Chairman's 

report and, as such, it goes from me to the TNC. It is not anything more than my personal report – in 

particular, it is not in any sense an agreed text of Members. It does not, therefore, in any way prejudge or 

prejudice the positions of Members on any matter within it or outside of it. And, it certainly does not 

bind Members in any way. It should go without saying that the agreed basis of our work is, and shall 

remain, the Doha Mandate itself and the Framework in the Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 

August 2004. 

4. As to the character of the paper, I have endeavoured to reflect what I discerned as the wishes of 

Members when they directed me to prepare this paper. I have tried to capture as clearly as I can such 

conditional progress and convergence as has developed in the post-July 2004 period. In doing so, I have 

not tried to brush under the carpet divergences that remain, and the paper tries to be just as clear on those 

points. Of course, it is a summary report. As such, it cannot – and does not – recapitulate each and every 

detail on each and every issue. But I took from Members' comments that they would prefer a paper which 

could 'orient' further discussion. 

5. In that regard, I hope that anyone reading this paper would be able to get a pretty clear idea of 

what it is that remains to be done. Members made it clear that it was not my task as Chair to prescribe 

what is to be done next in a programmatic way. My task was to register where we are now, but I confess 

to having done so with an eye to genuinely clarifying where key convergences exist or key divergences 

remain, rather than obscuring or overcomplicating matters. 

6. My own sense, when I review this myself, is the compelling urgency of seizing the moment and 

driving the process to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. We have made – particularly since August of 

this year – genuine and material progress. Indeed, it has come at a relatively rapid pace. It is also clear to 

me that it has been the product of a genuinely negotiating process. In other words, it has been a case of 

making proposals and counterproposals. That is why the matters covered in this report have an 

essentially conditional character. As I see it, the reality is that we have yet to find that last bridge to 

agreement that we need to secure modalities. But it would be a grave error, in my view, to imagine that 

we can take much time to find that bridge. As Chair, I am convinced that we must maintain momentum. 
You don't close divergences by taking time off to have a cup of tea. If you do so, you will find that 

everyone has moved backwards in the meantime. That, it seems to me, is a profound risk to our process. I 

would like to believe that this report at least underlines to us that there is indeed something real and 

important still within our grasp and we ought not to risk losing it. Our over-riding challenge and 

responsibility is to meet the development objective of the Doha Development Agenda. To meet this 

challenge and achieve this goal, we must act decisively and with real urgency. 

7. The future life of this paper, if any, is a matter entirely in the hands of TNC Members to decide. 

This, as I see it, is the proper safeguard of the integrity of what has come to be described as a "bottom-up" 

process. 

DOMESTIC SUPPORT 

8. There has been very considerable potential convergence, albeit on a manifestly conditional basis. 

Overall Cut 

- There is a working hypothesis of three bands for overall cuts by developed countries. There 

is a strongly convergent working hypothesis that the thresholds for the three bands be US$ 

billion 0-10; 10-60; >60. On this basis, the European Communities would be in the top 

band, the United States and Japan in the second band, and all other developed countries at 

least in the third band. For developing countries, there is a view that either developing 

countries are assigned to the relevant integrated band (the bottom) or that there is a separate 

band for them.1

- Based on post-July 2005 proposals, there has been an undeniably significant convergence on 

the range of cuts. Of course, this has been conditional. But subject to that feature, a great 

deal of progress has been made since the bare bones of the July 2004 Framework. The 

following matrix provides a snapshot: 

Bands Thresholds (US$ billion) Cuts

1 0-10 31%-70%

2 10-60 53%-75%

3 > 60 70%-80%

De Minimis 

- On product-specific de minimis and non-product-specific de minimis, there is a zone of 

engagement for cuts between 50% and 80% for developed countries. 

- As regards developing countries, there are still divergences to be bridged. In addition to the 

exemption specifically provided for in the Framework, there is a view that, for all developing 

countries, there should be no cut in de minimis at all. Alternatively, at least for those with no 

 

1

 On the proposed basis that cut remains to be determined for those developing countries with an AMS. In any case, 

there is a view (not shared by all) that cuts for developing countries should be less than 2/3 of the cut for developed 

countries.
AMS, there should be no cut and, in any case, any cut for those with an AMS should be less 

than 2/3 of the cut for developed countries. 

Blue Box 

9. There is important and significant convergence on moving beyond (i.e. further constraining) Blue 

Box programme payments envisaged in the July 2004 Framework. However, the technique for achieving 

this remains to be determined. One proposal is to shrink the current 5% ceiling to 2.5%.2

 Another 

proposal rejects this in favour of additional criteria disciplining the so-called "new" Blue Box only. 

Others favour a combination of both, including additional disciplines on the "old" Blue Box. 

AMS 

- There is a working hypothesis of three bands for developed countries. 

- There is close (but not full) convergence on the thresholds for those bands. There appears to 

be convergence that the top tier should be US$25 billion and above. There is some 

remaining divergence over the ceiling for the bottom band: between US$12 billion and 15 

billion. 

- There has been an undeniably significant convergence on the range of cuts. Of course, this 

has been conditional. But, that understood, a great deal of progress has been made since the 

bare bones of the July 2004 Framework. The following matrix3

 provides a snapshot: 

Bands Thresholds (US$ billion) Cuts

1 0-12/15 37-60%

2 12/15-25 60-70%

3 >25 70-83%

- There is therefore working hypothesis agreement that the European Communities should be 

in the top tier, and the United States in the second tier. However, while the basis for Japan's 

placement as between these two tiers has been narrowed, it remains to be finally resolved. 

- For developed countries in the bottom band, with a relatively high level of AMS relative to 

total value of agriculture production, there is emerging consensus that their band-related 

reduction should be complemented with an additional effort. 

- What is needed now is a further step to bridge the remaining gap in positions – particularly 

as regards the United States and the European Communities, it being understood that this is 

not a matter to be resolved in isolation from the other elements in this pillar and beyond. 

 

2

 The exact extent of the flexibility to be provided pursuant to paragraph 15 of the July 2004 Framework remains to 

be agreed. 

3

 Of course, this needs to be viewed as illustrative rather than overly literally, if for no other reason than that these 

are conditional figures. For instance, while the European Communities has indicated it could be prepared to go as 

far as 70% in the top tier, they make it clear that this is acceptable only if the United States will go to 60% in the 

second tier. The United States for its part, however, has only indicated preparedness to go to that 60% if the 

European Communities is prepared to go as high as 83% - which it has not indicated it is prepared to do. 
- On the base period for product-specific caps, certain proposals (such as for 1995-2000 and 

1999-2001) are on the table. This needs to be resolved appropriately, including the manner 

in which special and differential treatment should be applied. 

Green Box 

10. The review and clarification commitment has not resulted in any discernible convergence on 

operational outcomes. There is, on the one side, a firm rejection of anything that is seen as departing 

from the existing disciplines while there is, on the other, an enduring sense that more could be done to 

review the Green Box without undermining ongoing reform. Beyond that there is, however, some 

tangible openness to finding appropriate ways to ensure that the Green Box is more "development 

friendly" i.e. better tailored to meet the realities of developing country agriculture but in a way that 

respects the fundamental requirement of at most minimal trade distortion. 

EXPORT COMPETITION

End Date 

11. While concrete proposals4

 have been made on the issue of an end date for elimination of all forms 

of export subsidies, there is at this stage no convergence. There are suggestions for the principle of frontloading or accelerated elimination for specific products, including particularly cotton. 

Export Credits 

12. Convergence has been achieved on a number of elements of disciplines with respect to export 

credits, export credit guarantee or insurance programmes with repayment periods of 180 days and below. 

However, a number of critical issues remain.5

 

Exporting State Trading Enterprises 

13. There has been material convergence on rules to address trade-distorting practices identified in 

the July 2004 Framework text, although there are still major differences regarding the scope of practices 

to be covered by the new disciplines. Fundamentally opposing positions remain, however, on the issue of 

the future use of monopoly powers. There have been concrete drafting proposals on such matters as 

definition of entities and practices to be addressed as well as transparency. But there has been no genuine 

convergence in such areas. 

Food Aid 

14. There is consensus among Members that the WTO shall not stand in the way of the provision of 

genuine food aid. There is also consensus that what is to be eliminated is commercial displacement. There 

 

4

 One Member has proposed the year 2010 for "export subsidies", with accelerated elimination for "specific" 

products. Another group of Members have proposed a period "no longer than five years" for all forms of export 

subsidies, with "direct" export subsidies subject to front-loading within that period. 

5

 This includes, but is not limited to: exemptions, if any, to the 180 day rule; whether the disciplines should allow for 

pure cover only or also permit direct financing; the appropriate period for programmes to fully recover their costs 

and losses through the premia levied from the exporters (principle of self-financing - there needs to be convergence 

between position which range from one year to fifteen years); the disciplines regarding special circumstances; and 

the question of special and differential treatment, including whether, as some Members argue, developing countries 

should be allowed longer repayment terms for export credits extended by them to other developing countries and the 

specifics of differential treatment in favour of least-developed and net food-importing developing countries. 
have been detailed and intensive discussions, some of which have even been text-based, but not to a point 

where a consolidated draft text could be developed. This has been precluded by Members clinging to 

fundamentally disparate conceptual premises. There are proposals that in the disciplines a distinction 

should be made between at least two types of food aid: emergency food aid and food aid to address other 

situations. However, there is not yet a common understanding where emergency food aid ends and other 

food aid begins, reflecting concerns that this distinction should not become a means to create a loophole 

in disciplines. A fundamental sticking point is whether, except in exceptional, genuine emergency 

situations, Members should (albeit gradually) move towards untied, in-cash food aid only, as some 

Members propose but other Members strongly oppose.6

 

Special and Differential Treatment 

15. Framework provisions for special and differential treatment, including with respect to the 

monopoly status of state trading enterprises in developing countries and an extended lifetime for Article 

9.4, have been uncontroversial, but details remain to be established. 

Special Circumstances 

16. Work on the criteria and consultation procedures to govern any ad hoc temporary financing 

arrangements relating to exports to developing countries in exceptional circumstances is not much 

developed. 

MARKET ACCESS 

Tiered Formula 

- We have progressed on ad valorem equivalents.7

 This has successfully created a basis for 

allocating items into bands for the tiered formula. 

- We have a working hypothesis of four bands for structuring tariff cuts. 

- There has been very considerable convergence on adopting a linear-based approach for cuts 

within those bands. Members have, of course, by no means formally abandoned positions 

that are even more divergent.8

 We need now to narrow the extent of divergence that remains. 

This will include whether or not to include any "pivot" in any band. 

- Members have made strong efforts to promote convergence on the size of actual cuts to be 

undertaken within those bands. But, even though genuine efforts have been made to move 

from formal positions (which of course remain), major gaps are yet to be bridged. Somewhat 

 6

 This fundamental divergence has effectively precluded convergence on such matters as what disciplines, 

if any, should be established with respect to monetization of food aid or the question of the provision of food aid in 

fully grant form only. The importance of operationally effective transparency requirements is generally 

acknowledged, but details have still to be developed, particularly those relating to the role of the WTO in this 

context. Further work is required to clarify the role of recipient countries and relevant international organizations or 

other entities in triggering or providing food aid.

7

 The method for calculating the AVEs for the sugar lines is still to be established. 

8

 At one end of the spectrum, as it were, a "harmonisation" formula within the bands; at the other end "flexibility" 

within the formula. 
greater convergence has been achieved as regards the thresholds for the bands. Substantial 

movement is clearly essential to progress. 9

- Some Members continue to reject completely the concept of a tariff cap. Others have 

proposed10 a cap between 75-100%. 

Sensitive Products

- Members have been prepared to make concrete - albeit conditional - proposals on the number 

of sensitive products. But, in a situation where proposals extend from as little as 1% to as 

much as 15% of tariff lines, further bridging this difference is essential to progress. 

- The fundamental divergence over the basic approach to treatment of sensitive products needs 

to be resolved.11 Beyond that, there needs to be convergence on the consequential extent of 

liberalisation for such products. 

Special and Differential Treatment 

- Just as for developed countries, there is a working hypothesis of four bands for developing 

countries. There is no disagreement on lesser cuts within the bands. A certain body of 

opinion is open to considering cuts of two-thirds of the amount of the cuts for developed 

countries as a plausible zone in which to search more intensively for convergence.12 But 

 

9

 The matrix below is an illustrative table that portrays the extent of divergences that remain, even on the basis of 

post-August 2005 proposals. This does not entirely cover all the subtleties of those proposals to utilize a "pivot" 

(although most are in fact within the ranges tabulated), but is intended to convey a snapshot of the status of average 

cuts proposed post-August. 

 Thresholds Range of cuts (%) 

Band 1 0% - 20/30% 20-65 

Band 2 20/30% - 40/60% 30-75 

Band 3 40/60% - 60/90% 35-85 

Band 4 >60/90% 42-90 

10 As an element in certain conditional proposals on overall market access, tabled post-July 2005. 

11 Some see this as being tariff quota based and expressed as a percentage of domestic consumption, with proposals 

of up to 10%. Others propose pro rata expansion on an existing trade basis, including taking account of current 

imports. Some also propose no new TRQs, with sensitivity in such cases to be provided through other means, e.g. 

differential phasing. There is also a proposal for a "sliding scale" approach. 

12 In this pillar, as well as in the other two, there is general convergence on the point that developing countries will 

have entitlement to longer implementation periods, albeit that concrete precision remains to be determined. 
significant disagreement on that remains, and divergence is, if anything, somewhat more 

marked on the connected issue of higher thresholds for developing countries.13 

- Some Members continue to reject completely the concept of a tariff cap for developing 

countries. Others have proposed14 a cap at 150%. 

- For sensitive products, there is no disagreement that there should be greater flexibility for 

developing countries, but the extent of this needs to be further defined.15

Special Products 

- Regarding designation of special products, there has been a clear divergence between those 

Members which consider that, prior to establishment of schedules, a list of non-exhaustive 

and illustrative criteria-based indicators should be established and those Members which are 

looking for a list which would act as a filter or screen for the selection of such products. 

Latterly, it has been proposed (but not yet discussed with Members as a whole) that a 

developing country Member should have the right to designate at least 20 per cent of its 

agricultural tariff lines as Special Products, and be further entitled to designate an SP where, 

for that product, an AMS has been notified and exports have taken place. This issue needs to 

be resolved as part of modalities so that there is assurance of the basis upon which Members 

may designate special products. 

- Some moves toward convergence on treatment of Special Products have been made recently. 

Some Members had considered that special products should be fully exempt from any new 

market access commitments whatsoever and have automatic access to the SSM. Others had 

argued there should be some degree of market opening for these products, albeit reflecting 

 

13 The matrix below is an illustrative table that portrays the extent of divergences that remain, just on the basis of 

post-August 2005 proposals. 

 Thresholds Range of cuts (%) 

Band 1 0% - 20/50% 15-25* 

Band 2 20/50% - 40/100% 20-30* 

Band 3 40/100% - 60/150% 25-35* 

Band 4 >60-150% 30-40* 

*There is also a proposal that cuts for developing countries should be "slightly lesser" than the upper tariff cuts for 

developed countries shown in the preceding table (i.e.: "slightly lesser" than 65, 75, 85 and 90%). 

14 As an element in certain conditional proposals on overall market access, tabled post-July 2005. 

15 While the eventual zone of convergence for developed countries undoubtedly has a bearing in this area, it has 

been proposed by a group of Members that the principles of sensitive products generally and for TRQs specifically 

should be different for developing countries. Another group of Members has proposed, in the post-August period, an 

entitlement for developing countries of at least 50% more than the maximum number of lines used by any developed 

Member. This would (based on developed country proposals) amount to a potential variation between 1.5% and 

22.5% of tariff lines. This latter group has also proposed that products relating to long-standing preferences shall be 

designated as sensitive and that any TRQ expansion should not be "at the detriment of existing ACP quotas". This 

particular view has been, however, strongly opposed by other Members which take the firm position that tropical 

and diversification products should not at all be designated as sensitive products. 
more flexible treatment than for other products. In the presence of this fundamental 

divergence, it had clearly been impossible to undertake any definition of what such 

flexibility would be. Genuine convergence is obviously urgently needed. There is now a new 

proposal for a tripartite categorization of Special Products involving limited tariff cuts for at 

least a proportion of such products which remains to be fully discussed. It remains to be seen 

whether this discussion can help move us forward. 

Special Safeguard Mechanism 

- There is agreement that there would be a special safeguard mechanism and that it should be 

tailored to the particular circumstances and needs of developing countries. There is no 

material disagreement with the view that it should have a quantity trigger. Nor is there 

disagreement with the view that it should at least be capable of addressing effectively what 

might be described as import "surges". Divergence remains over whether, or if so how, 

situations that are lesser than "surge" are to be dealt with. There is, however, agreement that 

any remedy should be of a temporary nature. There remains strong divergence however on 

whether, or if so how, a special safeguard should be "price-based" to deal specifically with 

price effects. 

- There is some discernible openness, albeit at varying levels, to at least consider coverage of 

products that are likely to undergo significant liberalisation effects, and/or are already bound 

at low levels and/or are special products. Beyond that, however, there remains a 

fundamental divergence between those considering all products should be eligible for such a 

mechanism and those opposing such a blanket approach. 

Other Elements 

17. There has been no further material convergence on the matters covered by paragraphs 35 and 37 

of the July 2004 Framework text. The same may be said for paragraph 36 on tariff escalation, albeit that 

there is full agreement on the need for this to be done, and a genuine recognition of the particular 

importance of this for commodities exporters. Certain concrete proposals have been made on paragraph 

38 (SSG) and met with opposition from some Members. 

18. Concrete proposals have been made and discussed on how to implement paragraph 43 of the July 

2004 Framework on tropical and diversification products. But there remains divergence over the precise 

interpretation of this section of the July Framework16 and no common approach has been established. 

19. The importance of long-standing preferences pursuant to paragraph 44 of the July 2004 

Framework is fully recognised and concrete proposals regarding preference erosion have been made and 

discussed.17 There seems not to be inherent difficulty with a role for capacity building. However, while 

there is some degree of support for e.g. longer implementation periods for at least certain products in 

order to facilitate adjustment, there is far from convergence on even this. Some argue it is not sufficient 

or certainly not in all cases, while others that it is not warranted at all. 

 

16 It is argued by some Members that this is to be interpreted as meaning full duty- and tariff quota-free access, but 

by others as less than that. 

17 Note 15 above refers. 
LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 

20. There is no questioning of the terms of paragraph 45 of the July Framework agreement, which 

exempts least-developed countries from any reduction requirement. The stipulation that "developed 

Members, and developing country Members in a position to do so, should provide duty-free and quotafree market access for products originating from least-developed countries" is not at this point concretely 

operational for all Members. At this stage, several Members have made undertakings. Proposals for this 

to be bound remain on the table.18

COTTON 

21. While there is genuine recognition of the problem to be addressed and concrete proposals have 

been made, Members remain at this point short of concrete and specific achievement that would be 

needed to meet the July Framework direction to address this matter ambitiously, expeditiously and 

specifically. There is no disagreement with the view that all forms of export subsidies are to be eliminated 

for cotton although the timing and speed remains to be specified. Proposals to eliminate them 

immediately or from day one of the implementation period are not at this point shared by all Members. In 

the case of trade distorting support, proponents seek full elimination with "front-loaded" 

implementation.19 There is a view that the extent to which this can occur, and its timing, can only be 

determined in the context of an overall agreement. Another view is that there could be at least substantial 

and front-loaded reduction on cotton specifically from day one of implementation, with the major 

implementation achieved within twelve months, and the remainder to be completed within a period 

shorter than the overall implementation period for agriculture.20 

RECENTLY-ACCEDED MEMBERS 

22. Concrete proposals have been made and discussed, but no specific flexibility provisions have 

commanded consensus. 

MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE 

23. A proposal has been made but there is no material advance at this point. 

OTHER ISSUES 

24. On paragraph 49 (sectoral initiatives, differential export taxes, GIs) certain positions and 

proposals have been tabled and/or referred to. They are issues that remain of interest but not agreed. 

 

18 It is also proposed that this should be accompanied by simple and transparent rules of origin and other measures to 

address non-tariff barriers. 

19 Concrete proposals have been made, with a three-step approach: 80% on day one, an additional 10% after 12 

months and the last 10% a year later. 

20 A Member has indicated that it is prepared to implement all its commitments from day one and, in any 

case, to autonomously ensure that its commitments on eliminating the most trade-distorting domestic support, 

eliminating all forms of export subsidies and providing mfn duty- and quota-free access for cotton will take place 

from 2006. 
25. At this point, proposals on paragraph 50 have not advanced materially. 

26. In the case of small and vulnerable economies, a concrete proposal has been made recently. It 

has not yet been subject to consultation. 

27. There is openness to the particular concerns of commodity-dependent developing and leastdeveloped countries facing long-term decline and/or sharp fluctuations in prices. There is, at this point 

(where, overall, precise modalities are still pending), support for the view that such modalities should 

eventually be capable of addressing effectively key areas for them.21

 21 This would appear to include in particular such a matter as tariff escalation, where it discourages the 

development of processing industries in the commodity producing countries. The idea of a review and clarification 

of what the current status is of GATT 1994 provisions relating to the stabilisation of prices through the adoption of 

supply management systems by producing countries, and the use of export taxes and restrictions under such systems 

is also on the table. Proponents would seek something more than this such as more concrete undertakings in the area 

of non-tariff measures and actual revision of existing provisions. There is, at this point, no consensus in these latter 

areas, but an appreciation at least of the underlying issues at stake.
Annex B 

Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products 

Report by the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access to the TNC

B. INTRODUCTION

1. A Chairman's commentary of the state of play of the NAMA negotiations was prepared in July 

2005 and circulated in document JOB(05)/147 and Add.1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Chairman's 

commentary"). The current report, made on my responsibility, reflects the state of play of the NAMA 

negotiations at this juncture of the Doha Development Agenda, and supplements that commentary. 

2. With an eye on the forthcoming Ministerial, Section B of this report attempts to highlight those 

areas of convergence and divergence on the elements of Annex B of Decision adopted by the General 

Council on 1 August 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the “NAMA framework”), and to provide some 

guidance as to what may be a possible future course of action with respect to some of the elements. 

Section C of the report provides some final remarks about possible action by Ministers at Hong Kong. 

3. In preparing this report, use has been made of documents provided by Members (as listed in 

TN/MA/S/16/Rev.2) as well as the discussions in the open-ended sessions of the Group, plurilateral 

meetings and bilateral contacts, as long as they were not in the nature of confessionals. 

C. SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF PLAY

4. Full modalities must have detailed language and, where required, final numbers on all elements of 

the NAMA framework. Such an agreement should also contain a detailed work plan concerning the 

process after the establishment of full modalities for the purpose of the submission, verification and 

annexation of Doha Schedules to a legal instrument. While acknowledging that progress has been made 

since the adoption of the NAMA framework, the establishment of full modalities is, at present, a difficult 

prospect given the lack of agreement on a number of elements in the NAMA framework including the 

formula, paragraph 8 flexibilities and unbound tariffs. 

5. Regarding the structure of this section, generally Members recognize that the issues identified in 

the preceding paragraph are the three elements of the NAMA framework on which solutions are required 

as a matter of priority, and that there is a need to address them in an interlinked fashion. So, this report 

will commence with these three subjects before moving on to the other elements of the NAMA 

framework in the order in which they are presented therein. 

Formula (paragraph 4 of the NAMA framework) 

6. On the non-linear formula, there has been movement since the adoption of the NAMA 

framework. There is a more common understanding of the shape of the formula that Members are willing 

to adopt in these negotiations. In fact, Members have been focusing on a Swiss formula. During the past 

few months, much time and effort has been spent examining the impact of such a formula from both a 

defensive and offensive angle. In terms of the specifics of that formula, there are basically two variations 

on the table: a formula with a limited number of negotiated coefficients and a formula where the value of 

each country's coefficient would be based essentially on the tariff average of bound rates of that Member, 

resulting in multiple coefficients. 
7. In order to move beyond a debate on the merits of the two options (and in recognition of the fact 

that what matters in the final analysis is the level of the coefficient) more recently Members have engaged 

in a discussion of numbers. Such a debate has been particularly helpful, especially as it demonstrated in a 

quantifiable manner to what extent the benchmarks established in paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration would be achieved. While it is evident that one of the characteristics of such a formula is to 

address tariff peaks, tariff escalation and high tariffs (as it brings down high tariffs more than low tariffs), 

one benchmark which has been the subject of differences of opinion has been that of "less than full 

reciprocity in reduction commitments" and how it should be measured. Some developing Members are of 

the view that this means less than average percentage cuts i.e. as translated through a higher coefficient in 

the formula, than those undertaken by developed country Members. However, the latter have indicated 

that there are other measurements of less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments including the 

final rates after the formula cut which in their markets would be less than in developing country markets. 

Also, in their view, such a measurement of less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments has to take 

into account not only the additional effort made by them in all areas but also of paragraph 8 flexibilities 

and the fact that several developing Members and the LDCs would be exempt from formula cuts. 

8. Other objectives put forward by developed Members and some developing Members as being 

part of the Doha NAMA mandate are: harmonization of tariffs between Members; cuts into applied rates; 

and improvement of South-South trade. However, these objectives have been challenged by other 

developing Members who believe that, on the contrary, they are not part of that mandate. 

9. During the informal discussions, many Members engaged in an exchange on the basis of an 

approach with two coefficients. In the context of such debates, the coefficients which were mentioned for 

developed Members fell generally within the range of 5 to 10, and for developing Members within the 

range of 15 to 30, although some developing Members did propose lower coefficients for developed 

Members and higher coefficients for developing Members. In addition, a developing country coefficient 

of 10 was also put forward by some developed Members. However, while this discussion of numbers is a 

positive development, the inescapable reality is that the range of coefficients is wide and reflects the 

divergence that exists as to Members’ expectations regarding the contributions that their trading partners 

should be making. 

Flexibilities for developing Members subject to a formula (paragraph 8 of the NAMA framework)

10. A central issue concerning the paragraph 8 flexibilities has been the question of linkage or nonlinkage between these flexibilities and the coefficient in the formula. A view was expressed that the 

flexibilities currently provided for in paragraph 8 are equivalent to 4-5 additional points to the coefficient 

in the formula, and as a result there was need to take this aspect into account in the developing country 

coefficient. In response, the argument has been made by many developing Members that those 

flexibilities are a stand alone provision as reflected in the language of that provision, and should not be 

linked to the coefficient. Otherwise, this would amount to re-opening the NAMA framework. Some of 

those Members have also expressed the view that the numbers currently within square brackets are the 

minimum required for their sensitive tariff lines, and have expressed concern about the conditions 

attached to the use of such flexibilities, such as the capping of the import value. In response, the point has 

been made by developed Members that they are not seeking to remove the flexibilities under paragraph 8, 

and therefore are not re-opening the NAMA framework. They further point out that the numbers in 

paragraph 8 are within square brackets precisely to reflect the fact that they are not fixed and may need to 

be adjusted downwards depending on the level of the coefficient. In addition, the need for more 

transparency and predictability with regard to the tariff lines which would be covered by paragraph 8 

flexibilities has been raised by some of these Members. Some developing Members have also advanced 

the idea that there should be the option for those developing Members not wanting to use paragraph 8 

flexibilities to have recourse to a higher coefficient in the formula in the interest of having a balanced 

outcome. 
Unbound Tariff Lines (paragraph 5, indent two of the NAMA framework) 

11. There has been progress on the discussion of unbound tariff lines. There is an understanding that 

full bindings would be a desirable objective of the NAMA negotiations, and a growing sense that 

unbound tariff lines should be subject to formula cuts provided there is a pragmatic solution for those 

lines with low applied rates. However, some Members have stressed that their unbound tariff lines with 

high applied rates are also sensitive and due consideration should be given to those lines. There now 

appears to be a willingness among several Members to move forward on the basis of a non-linear mark-up 

approach to establish base rates, and in the case of some of these Members, provided that such an 

approach yields an equitable result. A non-linear mark-up approach envisages the addition of a certain 

number of percentage points to the applied rate of the unbound tariff line in order to establish the base 

rate on which the formula is to be applied. There are two variations of such an approach. In one case, a 

constant number of percentage points are added to the applied rate in order to establish the base rate. The 

other variation consists of having a different number of percentage points depending on the level of the 

applied rate. In other words, the lower the applied rate the higher the mark-up and the higher the applied 

rate, the lower the mark-up. There is also one proposal on the table of a target average approach where an 

average is established through the use of a formula, with the unbound tariff lines expected to have final 

bindings around that average. 

12. On a practical level, in their discussions on unbound tariff lines, Members have been referring 

mostly to the constant mark-up methodology to establish base rates. In the context of such discussions, 

the number for the mark-up has ranged from 5 to 30 percentage points. Once again the gap between the 

two figures is wide, but Members have displayed willingness to be flexible. 

 

Other elements of the formula (paragraph 5 of the NAMA framework)

13. Concerning product coverage (indent 1), Members have made good progress to establish a list of 

non-agricultural products as reflected in document JOB(05)/226/Rev.2. The main issue is whether the 

outcome of this exercise should be an agreed list or guidelines. It would appear that several Members are 

in favour of the former outcome, however, some have expressed their preference for the latter. In any 

event, there are only a limited number of items (17) on which differences exist and Members should try 

and resolve these differences as quickly as possible. 

14. On ad valorem equivalents (indent 5), agreement was reached to convert non ad valorem duties to 

ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the methodology contained in JOB(05)/166/Rev.1 and to bind 

them in ad valorem terms. To date, four Members have submitted their preliminary AVE calculations, 

but there are many more due. Those Members would need to submit this information as quickly as 

possible so as to allow sufficient time for the multilateral verification process. 

15. The subject of how credit is to be given for autonomous liberalization (indent 4) by developing 

countries provided that the tariff lines are bound on an MFN basis in the WTO since the conclusion of the 

Uruguay Round has not been discussed in detail since the adoption of the NAMA framework. However, 

this issue may be more usefully taken up once there is a clearer picture of the formula. 

16. All the other elements of the formula such as tariff cuts commencing from bound rates after full 

implementation of current commitments (indent 2), the base year (indent 3), the nomenclature (indent 6) 

and reference period for import data (indent 7) have not been discussed any further since July 2004, as 

they were acceptable to Members as currently reflected in the NAMA framework. 
Other flexibilities for developing Members

Members with low binding coverage (paragraph 6 of the NAMA framework) 

17. A submission by a group of developing Members, covered under paragraph 6 provisions, was 

made in June 2005. The paper proposed that Members falling under this paragraph should be encouraged 

to substantially increase their binding coverage, and bind tariff lines at a level consistent with their 

individual development, trade, fiscal and strategic needs. A preliminary discussion of this proposal 

revealed that there were concerns about this proposal re-opening this paragraph by seeking to enhance the 

flexibilities contained therein. Further discussion of this proposal is required. However, it appears that 

the issue of concern to some of the paragraph 6 Members is not related so much to the full binding 

coverage, but rather to the average level at which these Members would be required to bind their tariffs. 

Flexibilities for LDCs (paragraph 9 of the NAMA framework) 

18. There appears to be a common understanding that LDCs will be the judge of the extent and level 

of the bindings that they make. At the same time, Members have indicated that this substantial increase of 

the binding commitments which LDCs are expected to undertake should be done with a good faith effort. 

In this regard, some yardsticks for this effort were mentioned including the coverage and level of bindings 

made in the Uruguay Round by other LDCs as well as the more recently acceded LDCs. 

Small, vulnerable economies

19. A paper was submitted recently by a group of Members which proposes inter alia lesser and 

linear cuts to Members identified by a criterion using trade share. While some developing and developed 

Members were sympathetic to the situation of such Members, concerns were expressed with respect to the 

threshold used to establish eligibility, and also the treatment envisaged. Other developing Members 

expressed serious reservations about this proposal which in their view appeared to be creating a new 

category of developing Members, and to be further diluting the ambition of the NAMA negotiations. The 

sponsors of this proposal stressed that the small, vulnerable economies had characteristics which 

warranted special treatment. 

20. This is an issue on which there is a serious divergence of opinion among developing Members. 

This subject will need to be debated further. Discussions may be facilitated through additional statistical 

analysis. 

Sectorals (paragraph 7 of the NAMA framework) 

21. It appears that good progress is being made on the sectoral tariff component of the NAMA 

negotiations. Work which is taking place in an informal Member-driven process has focused on inter alia 

identification of sectors, product coverage, participation, end rates and adequate provisions of flexibilities 

for developing countries. Besides the sectorals based on a critical mass approach identified in the 

Chairman's commentary – bicycles, chemicals, electronics/electrical equipment, fish, footwear, forest 

products, gems and jewellery, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, raw materials and sporting goods 

– I understand that work is ongoing on other sectors namely apparel, auto/auto parts and textiles. 

22. While this component of the NAMA negotiations is recognized in the NAMA framework to be a 

key element to delivering on the objectives of paragraph 16 of the Doha NAMA mandate, some 

developing Members have questioned the rationale of engaging in sectoral negotiations before having the 

formula finalized. Many have also re-iterated their view that sectorals are voluntary in nature. The point 

has also been made by other developing Members that sectorals harm smaller developing Members due to 
an erosion of their preferences. However, the proponents of such initiatives have argued that sectorals are 

another key element of the NAMA negotiations and an important modality for delivering on the 

elimination of duties as mandated in paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. In addition, they 

have pointed out that some of the sectorals were initiated by developing Members. Moreover, such 

initiatives require substantive work and were time-consuming to prepare. Concerning preference erosion, 

this was a cross-cutting issue. 

23. Members will need to begin considering time-lines for the finalization of such work, and the 

submission of the outcomes which will be applied on an MFN basis. 

Market Access for LDCs (paragraph 10 of the NAMA framework) 

24. In the discussions on this subject, it was noted that the Committee on Trade and Development in 

Special Session is examining the question of duty-free and quota-free access for non-agricultural products 

originating from LDCs. Consequently, there is recognition by Members that the discussions in that 

Committee would most probably have an impact on this element of the NAMA framework, and would 

need to be factored in at the appropriate time. 

Newly Acceded Members (paragraph 11 of the NAMA framework)

25. Members recognize the extensive market access commitments made by the NAMs at the time of 

their accession. From the discussions held on this subject, it was clarified that those NAMs which are 

developing Members have access to paragraph 8 flexibilities. As special provisions for tariff reductions 

for the NAMs, some Members are willing to consider longer implementation periods than those to be 

provided to developing Members. Other proposals such as a higher coefficient and "grace periods" for the 

NAMs were also put forward, but a number of Members have objected to these ideas. There has also been 

a submission by four low-income economies in transition who have requested to be exempt from formula 

cuts in light of their substantive contributions at the time of their WTO accession and the current difficult 

state of their economies. While some Members showed sympathy for the situation of these Members, 

they expressed the view that other solutions may be more appropriate. Some developing Members also 

expressed concern about this proposal creating a differentiation between Members. Further discussion is 

required on these issues. 

 

NTBs (paragraph 14 of the NAMA framework) 

26. Since adoption of the July 2004 framework, Members have been focusing their attention on nontariff barriers in recognition of the fact that they are an integral and equally important part of the NAMA 

negotiations. Some Members claim that they constitute a greater barrier to their exports than tariffs. The 

Group has spent a considerable amount of time identifying, categorizing and examining the notified 

NTBs. Members are using bilateral, vertical and horizontal approaches to the NTB negotiations. For 

example, many Members are raising issues bilaterally with their trading partners. Vertical initiatives are 

ongoing on automobiles, electronic products and wood products. There have been some proposals of a 

horizontal nature concerning export taxes, export restrictions and remanufactured products. On export 

taxes, some Members have expressed the view that such measures fall outside the mandate of the NAMA 

negotiations. Some Members have also raised in other Negotiating Groups some of the NTBs they had 

notified initially in the context of the NAMA negotiations. For example, a number of trade facilitation 

measures are now being examined in the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation. Some other Members 

have also indicated their intention to bring issues to the regular WTO Committees. NTBs currently 

proposed for negotiation in the NAMA Group are contained in document JOB(05)/85/Rev.3. 

27. Some proposals have been made of a procedural nature in order to expedite the NTB work, 

including a suggestion to hold dedicated NTB sessions. Further consideration will need to be given to 
this and other proposals. Members will also need to begin considering some time-lines for the submission 

of specific negotiating proposals and NTB outcomes. 

Appropriate Studies and Capacity Building Measures (paragraph 15 of the NAMA framework)

28. There has been no discussion as such on this element as it is an ongoing and integral part of the 

negotiating process. Several papers have been prepared by the Secretariat during the course of the 

negotiations and capacity building activities by the Secretariat have increased considerably since the 

launch of the Doha Development Agenda. Such activities will need to continue taking into account the 

evolution of the negotiations.

Non-reciprocal preferences (paragraph 16 of the NAMA framework)

29. In response to calls by some Members for a better idea of the scope of the problem, the ACP 

Group circulated an indicative list of products (170 HS 6-digit tariff lines) vulnerable to preference 

erosion in the EC and US markets as identified through a vulnerability index. Simulations were also 

submitted by the African Group. Some developing Members expressed concern that the tariff lines listed 

covered the majority of their exports, or covered critical exports to those markets and were also precisely 

the lines on which they sought MFN cuts. As a result, for these Members, it was impossible to entertain 

any solution which related to less than full formula cuts or longer staging. In this regard, concern was 

expressed by them that non-trade solutions were not being examined. For the proponents of the issue, a 

trade solution was necessary as this was a trade problem. According to them, their proposal would not 

undermine trade liberalization because they were seeking to manage such liberalization on a limited 

number of products. 

30. This subject is highly divisive precisely because the interests of the two groups of developing 

Members are in direct conflict. Additionally, it is a cross-cutting issue which makes it even more 

sensitive. While, the aforementioned list of products has been helpful in providing a sense of the scope of 

the problem and may help Members to engage in a more focused discussion, it is clear that pragmatism 

will need to be shown by all concerned. 

Environmental Goods (paragraph 17 of the NAMA framework) 

31. Since the adoption of the July framework in 2004, limited discussions have been held on this 

subject in the Group. However, it is noted that much work under paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Ministerial 

Declaration has been undertaken by the Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session. 

There would need to be close coordination between the two negotiating groups and a stock taking of the 

work undertaken in that Committee would be required at the appropriate time by the NAMA Negotiating 

Group. 

Other elements of the NAMA framework 

32. On the other elements of the NAMA framework, such as supplementary modalities (paragraph 

12), elimination of low duties (paragraph 13) and tariff revenue dependency (paragraph 16) the Group has 

not had a substantive debate. This has in part to do with the nature of the issue or because more 

information is required from the proponents. Regarding supplementary modalities, such modalities will 

become more relevant once the formula has been finalized. On elimination of low duties, this issue may 

be more suitable to consider once there is a better sense of the likely outcome of the NAMA negotiations. 

On tariff revenue dependency, more clarity is required from the proponents on the nature and scope of the 

problem. 
D. FINAL REMARKS

33. As may be observed from the above report, Members are far away from achieving full modalities. 

This is highly troubling. It will take a major effort by all if the objective of concluding the NAMA 

negotiations by the end of 2006 is to be realized. 

34. To this end, I would highlight as a critical objective for Hong Kong a common understanding on 

the formula, paragraph 8 flexibilities and unbound tariffs. It is crucial that Ministers move decisively on 

these elements so that the overall outcome is acceptable to all. This will give the necessary impetus to try 

and fulfill at a date soon thereafter the objective of full modalities for the NAMA negotiations. 

35. Specifically, Ministers should: 

 Obtain agreement on the final structure of the formula and narrow the range of numbers. 

 Resolve their basic differences over paragraph 8 flexibilities. 

 Clarify whether the constant mark-up approach is the way forward, and if so, narrow the range of 

numbers. 
Annex C 

Services 

Objectives

1. In order to achieve a progressively higher level of liberalization of trade in services, with 

appropriate flexibility for individual developing country Members, we agree that Members should be 

guided, to the maximum extent possible, by the following objectives in making their new and improved 

commitments: 

(a) Mode 1 

(i) commitments at existing levels of market access on a non-discriminatory basis 

across sectors of interest to Members 

(ii) removal of existing requirements of commercial presence 

(b) Mode 2 

(i) commitments at existing levels of market access on a non-discriminatory basis 

across sectors of interest to Members 

(ii) commitments on mode 2 where commitments on mode 1 exist 

(c) Mode 3 

(i) commitments on enhanced levels of foreign equity participation 

(ii) removal or substantial reduction of economic needs tests 

(iii) commitments allowing greater flexibility on the types of legal entity permitted 

(d) Mode 4 

(i) new or improved commitments on the categories of Contractual Services 

Suppliers, Independent Professionals and Others, de-linked from commercial 

presence, to reflect inter alia: 

- removal or substantial reduction of economic needs tests 

- indication of prescribed duration of stay and possibility of renewal, if any 

(ii) new or improved commitments on the categories of Intra-corporate Transferees 

and Business Visitors, to reflect inter alia: 

- removal or substantial reduction of economic needs tests 

- indication of prescribed duration of stay and possibility of renewal, if any 

(e) MFN Exemptions 
(i) removal or substantial reduction of exemptions from most-favoured-nation 

(MFN) treatment 

(ii) clarification of remaining MFN exemptions in terms of scope of application and 

duration 

(f) Scheduling of Commitments 

(i) ensuring clarity, certainty, comparability and coherence in the scheduling and 

classification of commitments through adherence to, inter alia, the Scheduling 

Guidelines pursuant to the Decision of the Council for Trade in Services adopted 

on 23 March 2001 

(ii) ensuring that scheduling of any remaining economic needs tests adheres to the 

Scheduling Guidelines pursuant to the Decision of the Council for Trade in 

Services adopted on 23 March 2001. 

2. As a reference for the request-offer negotiations, the sectoral and modal objectives as identified 

by Members may be considered.22

3. Members shall pursue full and effective implementation of the Modalities for the Special 

Treatment for Least-Developed Country Members in the Negotiations on Trade in Services 

(LDC Modalities) adopted by the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services on 

3 September 2003, with a view to the beneficial and meaningful integration of LDCs into the multilateral 

trading system. 

4. Members must intensify their efforts to conclude the negotiations on rule-making under GATS 

Articles X, XIII, and XV in accordance with their respective mandates and timelines: 

(a) Members should engage in more focused discussions in connection with the technical and 

procedural questions relating to the operation and application of any possible emergency 

safeguard measures in services. 

(b) On government procurement, Members should engage in more focused discussions and in 

this context put greater emphasis on proposals by Members, in accordance with Article 

XIII of the GATS. 

(c) On subsidies, Members should intensify their efforts to expedite and fulfil the information 

exchange required for the purpose of such negotiations, and should engage in more focused 

discussions on proposals by Members, including the development of a possible working 

definition of subsidies in services. 

5. Members shall develop disciplines on domestic regulation pursuant to the mandate under Article 

VI:4 of the GATS before the end of the current round of negotiations. We call upon Members to develop 

text for adoption. In so doing, Members shall consider proposals and the illustrative list of possible 

elements for Article VI:4 disciplines.23

 

22 As attached to the Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee on 28 November 2005, contained 

in document TN/S/23. This attachment has no legal standing. 

23 As attached to the Report of the Chairman of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation to the Special Session of 

the Council for Trade in Services on 15 November 2005, contained in document JOB(05)/280. 
Approaches

6. Pursuant to the principles and objectives above, we agree to intensify and expedite the requestoffer negotiations, which shall remain the main method of negotiation, with a view to securing substantial 

commitments. 

7. In addition to bilateral negotiations, we agree that the request-offer negotiations should also be 

pursued on a plurilateral basis in accordance with the principles of the GATS and the Guidelines and 

Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services. The results of such negotiations shall be extended 

on an MFN basis. These negotiations would be organized in the following manner: 

(a) Any Member or group of Members may present requests or collective requests to other 

Members in any specific sector or mode of supply, identifying their objectives for the 

negotiations in that sector or mode of supply. 

(b) Members to whom such requests have been made shall consider such requests in 

accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article XIX of the GATS and paragraph 11 of the 

Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services. 

(c) Plurilateral negotiations should be organised with a view to facilitating the participation of 

all Members, taking into account the limited capacity of developing countries and smaller 

delegations to participate in such negotiations. 

8. Due consideration shall be given to proposals on trade-related concerns of small economies. 

9. Members, in the course of negotiations, shall develop methods for the full and effective 

implementation of the LDC Modalities, including expeditiously: 

(a) Developing appropriate mechanisms for according special priority including to sectors and 

modes of supply of interest to LDCs in accordance with Article IV:3 of the GATS and 

paragraph 7 of the LDC Modalities. 

(b) Undertaking commitments, to the extent possible, in such sectors and modes of supply 

identified, or to be identified, by LDCs that represent priority in their development policies 

in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9 of the LDC Modalities. 

(c) Assisting LDCs to enable them to identify sectors and modes of supply that represent 

development priorities. 

(d) Providing targeted and effective technical assistance and capacity building for LDCs in 

accordance with the LDC Modalities, particularly paragraphs 8 and 12. 

(e) Developing a reporting mechanism to facilitate the review requirement in paragraph 13 of 

the LDC Modalities. 

10. Targeted technical assistance should be provided through, inter alia, the WTO Secretariat, with a 

view to enabling developing and least-developed countries to participate effectively in the negotiations. 

In particular and in accordance with paragraph 51 on Technical Cooperation of this Declaration, targeted 

technical assistance should be given to all developing countries allowing them to fully engage in the 

negotiation. In addition, such assistance should be provided on, inter alia, compiling and analyzing 

statistical data on trade in services, assessing interests in and gains from services trade, building 

regulatory capacity, particularly on those services sectors where liberalization is being undertaken by 

developing countries. 
Timelines

11. Recognizing that an effective timeline is necessary in order to achieve a successful conclusion of 

the negotiations, we agree that the negotiations shall adhere to the following dates: 

(a) Any outstanding initial offers shall be submitted as soon as possible. 

(b) Groups of Members presenting plurilateral requests to other Members should submit such 

requests by 28 February 2006 or as soon as possible thereafter. 

(c) A second round of revised offers shall be submitted by 31 July 2006. 

(d) Final draft schedules of commitments shall be submitted by 31 October 2006. 

(e) Members shall strive to complete the requirements in 9(a) before the date in 11(c). 

Review of Progress

12. The Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services shall review progress in the negotiations 

and monitor the implementation of the Objectives, Approaches and Timelines set out in this Annex. 
Annex D 

Rules 

I. Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures including Fisheries Subsidies

We: 

1. acknowledge that the achievement of substantial results on all aspects of the Rules mandate, in 

the form of amendments to the Anti-Dumping (AD) and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

(SCM) Agreements, is important to the development of the rules-based multilateral trading 

system and to the overall balance of results in the DDA; 

2. aim to achieve in the negotiations on Rules further improvements, in particular, to the 

transparency, predictability and clarity of the relevant disciplines, to the benefit of all Members, 

including in particular developing and least-developed Members. In this respect, the 

development dimension of the negotiations must be addressed as an integral part of any outcome; 

3. call on Participants, in considering possible clarifications and improvements in the area of antidumping, to take into account, inter alia, (a) the need to avoid the unwarranted use of antidumping measures, while preserving the basic concepts, principles and effectiveness of the 

instrument and its objectives where such measures are warranted; and (b) the desirability of 

limiting the costs and complexity of proceedings for interested parties and the investigating 

authorities alike, while strengthening the due process, transparency and predictability of such 

proceedings and measures; 

4. consider that negotiations on anti-dumping should, as appropriate, clarify and improve the rules 

regarding, inter alia, (a) determinations of dumping, injury and causation, and the application of 

measures; (b) procedures governing the initiation, conduct and completion of antidumping 

investigations, including with a view to strengthening due process and enhancing transparency; 

and (c) the level, scope and duration of measures, including duty assessment, interim and new 

shipper reviews, sunset, and anti-circumvention proceedings; 

5. recognize that negotiations on anti-dumping have intensified and deepened, that Participants are 

showing a high level of constructive engagement, and that the process of rigorous discussion of 

the issues based on specific textual proposals for amendment to the AD Agreement has been 

productive and is a necessary step in achieving the substantial results to which Ministers are 

committed; 

6. note that, in the negotiations on anti-dumping, the Negotiating Group on Rules has been 

discussing in detail proposals on such issues as determinations of injury/causation, the lesser duty 

rule, public interest, transparency and due process, interim reviews, sunset, duty assessment, 

circumvention, the use of facts available, limited examination and all others rates, dispute 

settlement, the definition of dumped imports, affiliated parties, product under consideration, and 

the initiation and completion of investigations, and that this process of discussing proposals 

before the Group or yet to be submitted will continue after Hong Kong; 

7. note, in respect of subsidies and countervailing measures, that while proposals for amendments to 

the SCM Agreement have been submitted on a number of issues, including the definition of a 

subsidy, specificity, prohibited subsidies, serious prejudice, export credits and guarantees, and the 
allocation of benefit, there is a need to deepen the analysis on the basis of specific textual 

proposals in order to ensure a balanced outcome in all areas of the Group's mandate; 

8. note the desirability of applying to both anti-dumping and countervailing measures any 

clarifications and improvements which are relevant and appropriate to both instruments; 

9. recall our commitment at Doha to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, 

note that there is broad agreement that the Group should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the 

fisheries sector, including through the prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that 

contribute to overcapacity and over-fishing, and call on Participants promptly to undertake 

further detailed work to, inter alia, establish the nature and extent of those disciplines, including 

transparency and enforceability. Appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for 

developing and least-developed Members should be an integral part of the fisheries subsidies 

negotiations, taking into account the importance of this sector to development priorities, poverty 

reduction, and livelihood and food security concerns; 

10. direct the Group to intensify and accelerate the negotiating process in all areas of its mandate, on 

the basis of detailed textual proposals before the Group or yet to be submitted, and complete the 

process of analysing proposals by Participants on the AD and SCM Agreements as soon as 

possible; 

11. mandate the Chairman to prepare, early enough to assure a timely outcome within the context of 

the 2006 end date for the Doha Development Agenda and taking account of progress in other 

areas of the negotiations, consolidated texts of the AD and SCM Agreements that shall be the 

basis for the final stage of the negotiations. 

II. Regional Trade Agreements

1. We welcome the progress in negotiations to clarify and improve the WTO's disciplines and 

procedures on regional trade agreements (RTAs). Such agreements, which can foster trade liberalization 

and promote development, have become an important element in the trade policies of virtually all 

Members. Transparency of RTAs is thus of systemic interest as are disciplines that ensure the 

complementarity of RTAs with the WTO. 

2. We commend the progress in defining the elements of a transparency mechanism for RTAs, 

aimed, in particular, at improving existing WTO procedures for gathering factual information on RTAs, 

without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members. We instruct the Negotiating Group on Rules 

to intensify its efforts to resolve outstanding issues, with a view to a provisional decision on RTA 

transparency by 30 April 2006. 

3. We also note with appreciation the work of the Negotiating Group on Rules on WTO's disciplines 

governing RTAs, including inter alia on the "substantially all the trade" requirement, the length of RTA 

transition periods and RTA developmental aspects. We instruct the Group to intensify negotiations, 

based on text proposals as soon as possible after the Sixth Ministerial Conference, so as to arrive at 

appropriate outcomes by end 2006. 
Annex E 

Trade Facilitation 

Report by the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation to the TNC

1. Since its establishment on 12 October 2004, the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation met 

eleven times to carry out work under the mandate contained in Annex D of the Decision adopted by the 

General Council on 1 August 2004. The negotiations are benefiting from the fact that the mandate allows 

for the central development dimension of the Doha negotiations to be addressed directly through the 

widely acknowledged benefits of trade facilitation reforms for all WTO Members, the enhancement of 

trade facilitation capacity in developing countries and LDCs, and provisions on special and differential 

treatment (S&DT) that provide flexibility. Based on the Group's Work Plan (TN/TF/1), Members 

contributed to the agreed agenda of the Group, tabling 60 written submissions sponsored by more than 

100 delegations. Members appreciate the transparent and inclusive manner in which the negotiations are 

being conducted. 

2. Good progress has been made in all areas covered by the mandate, through both verbal and 

written contributions by Members. A considerable part of the Negotiating Group's meetings has been 

spent on addressing the negotiating objective of improving and clarifying relevant aspects of GATT 

Articles V, VIII and X, on which about 40 written submissions1

 have been tabled by Members 

representing the full spectrum of the WTO's Membership. Through discussions on these submissions and 

related questions and answers (JOB(05)/222), Members have advanced their understanding of the 

measures in question and are working towards common ground on many aspects of this part of the 

negotiating mandate. Many of these submissions also covered the negotiating objective of enhancing 

technical assistance and support for capacity building on trade facilitation, as well as the practical 

application of the principle of S&DT. The Group also discussed other valuable submissions dedicated to 

these issues.2

 Advances have also been made on the objective of arriving at provisions for effective 

cooperation between customs or any other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation and customs 

compliance issues, where two written proposals have been discussed.3

 Members have also made valuable 

contributions on the identification of trade facilitation needs and priorities, development aspects, cost 

implications and inter-agency cooperation.4

 

3. Valuable input has been provided by a number of Members in the form of national experience 

papers5

 describing national trade facilitation reform processes. In appreciation of the value to developing 

countries and LDCs of this aspect of the negotiations, the Negotiating Group recommends that Members 

be encouraged to continue this information sharing exercise. 

4. Building on the progress made in the negotiations so far, and with a view to developing a set of 

multilateral commitments on all elements of the mandate, the Negotiating Group recommends that it 

continue to intensify its negotiations on the basis of Members' proposals, as reflected currently in 

document TN/TF/W/43/Rev.4, and any new proposals to be presented. Without prejudice to individual 

Member's positions on individual proposals, a list of (I) proposed measures to improve and clarify GATT 

Articles V, VIII and X; (II) proposed provisions for effective cooperation between customs and other 

 

1

 TN/TF/W/6-W/15, W/17-W/26, W/28, W/30-W32, W/34-36, W/38-W/40, W/42, W/44-W/49, W/53, W/55, W/58, 

W/60-W/62, W/64-W/67, W/69, W/70. 

2

 TN/TF/W/33, W/41, W/56, W/63, W/73 and W/74. 

3

 TN/TF/W/57 and W/68. 

4

 TN/TF/W/29, W/33, W/41, W/62 and W/63. 

5

 TN/TF/W/48, W/50 , W/53, W/55, W/58, W/60, W/61, W/65, W/69 and W/75. 
authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance; and, (III) cross-cutting submissions; is provided 

below to facilitate further negotiations. In carrying out this work and in tabling further proposals, 

Members should be mindful of the overall deadline for finishing the negotiations and the resulting need to 

move into focussed drafting mode early enough after the Sixth Ministerial Conference so as to allow for a 

timely conclusion of text-based negotiations on all aspects of the mandate. 

5. Work needs to continue and broaden on the process of identifying individual Member's trade 

facilitation needs and priorities, and the cost implications of possible measures. The Negotiating Group 

recommends that relevant international organizations be invited to continue to assist Members in this 

process, recognizing the important contributions being made by them already, and be encouraged to 

continue and intensify their work more generally in support of the negotiations. 

6. In light of the vital importance of technical assistance and capacity building to allow developing 

countries and LDCs to fully participate in and benefit from the negotiations, the Negotiating Group 

recommends that the commitments in Annex D's mandate in this area be reaffirmed, reinforced and made 

operational in a timely manner. To bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion, special attention 

needs to be paid to support for technical assistance and capacity building that will allow developing 

counties and LDCs to participate effectively in the negotiations, and to technical assistance and capacity 

building to implement the results of the negotiations that is precise, effective and operational, and reflects 

the trade facilitation needs and priorities of developing countries and LDCs. Recognizing the valuable 

assistance already being provided in this area, the Negotiating Group recommends that Members, in 

particular developed ones, continue to intensify their support in a comprehensive manner and on a longterm and sustainable basis, backed by secure funding. 

7. The Negotiating Group also recommends that it deepen and intensify its negotiations on the issue 

of S&DT, with a view to arriving at S&DT provisions that are precise, effective and operational and that 

allow for necessary flexibility in implementing the results of the negotiations. Reaffirming the linkages 

among the elements of Annex D, the Negotiating Group recommends that further negotiations on S&DT 

build on input presented by Members in the context of measures related to GATT Articles V, VIII and X 

and in their proposals of a cross-cutting nature on S&DT. 

 PROPOSED MEASURES TO IMPROVE AND CLARIFY GATT ARTICLES 

V, VIII AND X 

A. PUBLICATION AND AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

 Publication of Trade Regulations 

 Publication of Penalty Provisions 

 Internet Publication 

(a) of elements set out in Article X of GATT 1994 

(b) of specified information setting forth procedural sequence and other requirements for 

importing goods 

 Notification of Trade Regulations 

 Establishment of Enquiry Points/SNFP/Information Centres 

 Other Measures to Enhance the Availability of Information 

B. TIME PERIODS BETWEEN PUBLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

 Interval between Publication and Entry into Force 
C. CONSULTATION AND COMMENTS ON NEW AND AMENDED RULES

 Prior Consultation and Commenting on New and Amended Rules 

 Information on Policy Objectives Sought 

 

D. ADVANCE RULINGS

 Provision of Advance Rulings 

E. APPEAL PROCEDURES

 Right of Appeal 

 Release of Goods in Event of Appeal 

F. OTHER MEASURES TO ENHANCE IMPARTIALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

 Uniform Administration of Trade Regulations 

 Maintenance and Reinforcement of Integrity and Ethical Conduct Among Officials 

(a) Establishment of a Code of Conduct 

(b) Computerized System to Reduce/Eliminate Discretion 

(c) System of Penalties 

(d) Technical Assistance to Create/Build up Capacities to Prevent and Control Customs 

Offences 

(e) Appointment of Staff for Education and Training 

(f) Coordination and Control Mechanisms 

G. FEES AND CHARGES CONNECTED WITH IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION

 General Disciplines on Fees and Charges Imposed on or in Connection with Importation and 

Exportation 

(a) Specific Parameters for Fees/Charges 

(b) Publication/Notification of Fees/Charges 

(c) Prohibition of Collection of Unpublished Fees and Charges 

(d) Periodic Review of Fees/Charges 

(e) Automated Payment 

 Reduction/Minimization of the Number and Diversity of Fees/Charges 

H. FORMALITIES CONNECTED WITH IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION

 Disciplines on Formalities/Procedures and Data/Documentation Requirements Connected with 

Importation and Exportation 

(a) Non-discrimination 

(b) Periodic Review of Formalities and Requirements 

(c) Reduction/Limitation of Formalities and Documentation Requirements 

(d) Use of International Standards 

(e) Uniform Customs Code 

(f) Acceptance of Commercially Available Information and of Copies 

(g) Automation 
(h) Single Window/One-time Submission 

(i) Elimination of Pre-Shipment Inspection 

(j) Phasing out Mandatory Use of Customs Brokers 

I. CONSULARIZATION

 Prohibition of Consular Transaction Requirement 

J. BORDER AGENCY COOPERATION

 Coordination of Activities and Requirement of all Border Agencies 

K. RELEASE AND CLEARANCE OF GOODS

 Expedited/Simplified Release and Clearance of Goods 

(a) Pre-arrival Clearance 

(b) Expedited Procedures for Express Shipments 

(c) Risk Management /Analysis, Authorized Traders 

(d) Post-Clearance Audit 

(e) Separating Release from Clearance Procedures 

(f) Other Measures to Simplify Customs Release and Clearance 

 Establishment and Publication of Average Release and Clearance Times 

L. TARIFF CLASSIFICATION

 Objective Criteria for Tariff Classification 

M. MATTERS RELATED TO GOODS TRANSIT

 Strengthened Non-discrimination 

 Disciplines on Fees and Charges 

(a) Publication of Fees and Charges and Prohibition of Unpublished ones 

(b) Periodic Review of Fees and Charges 

(c) More effective Disciplines on Charges for Transit 

(d) Periodic Exchange Between Neighbouring Authorities 

 Disciplines on Transit Formalities and Documentation Requirements 

 (a) Periodic Review 

 (b) Reduction/Simplification 

 (c) Harmonization/Standardization 

 (d) Promotion of Regional Transit Arrangements 

 (e) Simplified and Preferential Clearance for Certain Goods 

 (f) Limitation of Inspections and Controls 

 (g) Sealing 

 (h) Cooperation and Coordination on Document Requirements 

 (i) Monitoring 

 (j) Bonded Transport Regime/Guarantees 

 Improved Coordination and Cooperation 

 (a) Amongst Authorities 
 (b) Between Authorities and the Private Sector 

 Operationalization and Clarification of Terms 

II. PROPOSED PROVISIONS FOR EFFECTIVE COOPERATION BETWEEN CUSTOMS 

AND OTHER AUTHORITIES ON TRADE FACILITATION AND CUSTOMS 

COMPLIANCE 

 Multilateral Mechanism for the Exchange and Handling of Information 

III. CROSS-CUTTING SUBMISSIONS 

1. Needs and Priorities Identification 

 General tool to assess needs and priorities and current levels of trade facilitation

 Take result of assessment as one basis for establishing trade facilitation rules, arranging S&D 

treatment and providing technical assistance and capacity building support 

2. Technical Assistance and Capacity Building 

- Technical Assistance and Capacity Building in the Course of the Negotiations 

 Identification of Needs and Priorities 

 Compilation of Needs and Priorities of Individual Members 

 Support for Clarification and Educative Process Including Training 

- Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Beyond the Negotiations Phase 

 Implementation of the Outcome 

 Coordination Mechanisms for Implementing Needs and Priorities as well as Commitments 

 

3. Multiple-Areas 

 Identification of Trade Facilitation Needs and Priorities of Members 

 Cost Assessment 

 Inter-Agency Cooperation 

 Links and Inter-relationship between the Elements of Annex D 

 Inventory of Trade Facilitation Measures 

 Assessment of the Current Situation 

 Timing and Sequencing of Measures 
Annex F 

Special and Differential Treatment 

LDC Agreement-specific Proposals 

23) Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994 

(i) We agree that requests for waivers by least-developed country Members under Article IX of the 

WTO Agreement and the Understanding in respect of Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994 shall 

be given positive consideration and a decision taken within 60 days. 

(ii) When considering requests for waivers by other Members exclusively in favour of leastdeveloped country Members, we agree that a decision shall be taken within 60 days, or in exceptional 

circumstances as expeditiously as possible thereafter, without prejudice to the rights of other Members. 

36) Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries

We agree that developed-country Members shall, and developing-country Members declaring themselves 

in a position to do so should: 

(a) (i) Provide duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis, for all products originating 

from all LDCs by 2008 or no later than the start of the implementation period in a manner that 

ensures stability, security and predictability. 

 (ii) Members facing difficulties at this time to provide market access as set out above shall provide 

duty-free and quota-free market access for at least 97 per cent of products originating from LDCs, 

defined at the tariff line level, by 2008 or no later than the start of the implementation period. In 

addition, these Members shall take steps to progressively achieve compliance with the obligations 

set out above, taking into account the impact on other developing countries at similar levels of 

development, and, as appropriate, by incrementally building on the initial list of covered products. 

 (iii) Developing-country Members shall be permitted to phase in their commitments and shall enjoy 

appropriate flexibility in coverage. 

(b) Ensure that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs are transparent and 

simple, and contribute to facilitating market access. 

Members shall notify the implementation of the schemes adopted under this decision every year to the 

Committee on Trade and Development. The Committee on Trade and Development shall annually 

review the steps taken to provide duty-free and quota-free market access to the LDCs and report to the 

General Council for appropriate action. 

We urge all donors and relevant international institutions to increase financial and technical support 

aimed at the diversification of LDC economies, while providing additional financial and technical 

assistance through appropriate delivery mechanisms to meet their implementation obligations, including 

fulfilling SPS and TBT requirements, and to assist them in managing their adjustment processes, 

including those necessary to face the results of MFN multilateral trade liberalisation. 
38) Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries

It is reaffirmed that least-developed country Members will only be required to undertake commitments 

and concessions to the extent consistent with their individual development, financial or trade needs, or 

their administrative and institutional capacities. 

Within the context of coherence arrangements with other international institutions, we urge donors, 

multilateral agencies and international financial institutions to coordinate their work to ensure that LDCs 

are not subjected to conditionalities on loans, grants and official development assistance that are 

inconsistent with their rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements. 



 84) Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures 



LDCs shall be allowed to maintain on a temporary basis existing measures that deviate from their 

obligations under the TRIMs Agreement. For this purpose, LDCs shall notify the Council for Trade in 

Goods (CTG) of such measures within two years, starting 30 days after the date of this declaration. LDCs 

will be allowed to maintain these existing measures until the end of a new transition period, lasting seven 

years. This transition period may be extended by the CTG under the existing procedures set out in the 

TRIMs Agreement, taking into account the individual financial, trade, and development needs of the 

Member in question. 

LDCs shall also be allowed to introduce new measures that deviate from their obligations under the 

TRIMs Agreement. These new TRIMs shall be notified to the CTG no later than six months after their 

adoption. The CTG shall give positive consideration to such notifications, taking into account the 

individual financial, trade, and development needs of the Member in question. The duration of these 

measures will not exceed five years, renewable subject to review and decision by the CTG. 

Any measures incompatible with the TRIMs Agreement and adopted under this decision shall be phased 

out by year 2020. 

88) Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries–Paragraph 1

Least-developed country Members, whilst reaffirming their commitment to the fundamental principles of 

the WTO and relevant provisions of GATT 1994, and while complying with the general rules set out in 

the aforesaid instruments, will only be required to undertake commitments and concessions to the extent 

consistent with their individual development, financial and trade needs, and their administrative and 

institutional capabilities. Should a least-developed country Member find that it is not in a position to 

comply with a specific obligation or commitment on these grounds, it shall bring the matter to the 

attention of the General Council for examination and appropriate action. 

We agree that the implementation by LDCs of their obligations or commitments will require further 

technical and financial support directly related to the nature and scope of such obligations or 

commitments, and direct the WTO to coordinate its efforts with donors and relevant agencies to 

significantly increase aid for trade-related technical assistance and capacity building. 

__________ 
U.S. SUBMISSIONS TO THE WTO IN SUPPORT 

OF THE DOHA DEVELOPMENT AGENDA 

(WTO Document Symbol in Parentheses) 

Committee on Agriculture, Special Session

 Export Competition, Market Access and Domestic Support (JOB(02)/122) 

 Joint EC-US Paper on Agriculture (JOB(03)/157) 

 Proposal for Tariff Rate Quota Reform (G/AG/NG/W/58) 

 Proposal for Comprehensive Long-Term Agricultural Trade Reform (G/AG/NG/W/15) 

 Note on Domestic Support Reform (G/AG/NG/W/16) 

 Tariff Quota Administration (JOB(06)/188) 

 Domestic Support Simulations – Simulations (JOB(06)/186) 

 Tariff Quota Administration - Communication by the United States (JOB(06)/184) 

 Comments on Food Aid (JOB(06)/183) 

 Agriculture Domestic Support Simulations – Simulations (JOB(06)/151) 

 Applied Tariff Simulations - Agriculture - Summary of Results (JOB(06)/152) 

 United States Communication on Special Products (JOB(06)/137) 

 United States Communication on Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or Insurance Programs 

(JOB(06)/119) 

 United States Communication on State Trading Export Enterprises (JOB(06)/79) 

 United States Communication on Domestic Support - Annex 2 - Domestic Support: The Basis for 

Exemption from the Reduction Commitments (JOB(06)/80) 

 United States' Communication on Food Aid (JOB(06)/78) 

 Market Access Simulations – Simulations (JOB(06)/63) 

 US Communication on US Product-Specific Blue Box Limits (JOB(08)/10) 

 Elements of Special Products Modalities - Communication from Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, 

Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Thailand, United States and Uruguay (JOB(08)/24) 

 Agriculture Templates – An Approach and Initial Thoughts on Base Data and Base Data Templates 

(JOB(09)/104) 

 Agriculture Templates - Domestic Support Base Data Templates (JOB(09)/115) 

 Agriculture Templates - Market Access Base Data Templates (JOB(09)/125) 

 Agriculture Templates - Market Access Doha Development Agenda (DDA) Tariff Rate Quotas 

(TRQs) Template (JOB(09)/172)

 

Council on Trade in Services, Special Session 

 Framework for Negotiation (S/CSS/W/4) 

 Proposals for Negotiation (JOB(00)/8376) 

 Accounting Services (S/CSS/W/20) 

 Audiovisual and Related Services (S/CSS/W/21) 

 Distribution Services (S/CSS/W/22) 

 Higher (Tertiary) Education, Adult Education and Training (S/CSS/W/23) 

 Energy Services (S/CSS/W/24) 

 Environmental Services (S/CSS/W/25) 

 Express Delivery Services (S/CSS/W/26) 

 Financial Services (S/CSS/W/27) 

 Legal Services (S/CSS/W/28) 

 Movement of Natural Persons (S/CSS/W/29) 
 Market Access in Telecommunications and Complementary Services (S/CSS/W/30) 

 Tourism and Hotels (S/CSS/W/31) 

 Transparency in Domestic Regulation (S/CSS/W/102) 

 Advertising and Related Services (S/CSS/W/100) 

 Desirability of a Safeguard Mechanism for Services: Promoting Liberalization of Trade in Services 

(S/WPGR/W/37) 

 Modalities for the Special Treatment For Least-Developed Country Members in the Negotiations on 

Trade In Services – JOB(03)/133 

 U.S. Government Points of Contact in Least-Developed Country Members (JOB (03)/33) 

 Proposed Guide for Scheduling Commitments on Energy Services in the WTO (JOB(03)/89) 

 Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (TN/S/W/5) 

 Initial Offer (TN/S/O/USA) 

 An Assessment of Services Trade and Liberalization in the United States and Developing Economies 

(TN/S/W/12) 

 Joint Statement on Market Access in Services (JOB(04)/176) 

 U.S. Proposal for Transparency Disciplines in Domestic Regulation: Building on Existing 

International Disciplines and Proposals (JOB(04)/128) 

 Communication from the United States: Horizontal Transparency Disciplines in Domestic Regulation 

(JOB(06)/182) 

 Outline of the U.S. position on a Draft Consolidated Text in the WPDR (JOB(06)/223) 

 Classification in the Telecommunications Sector under the WTO-GATS Framework (TN/S/W/35 

and S/CSC/W/45) 

 Guidelines for Scheduling Commitments Concerning Postal and Courier Services, including Express 

Delivery (TN/S/W/30) 

 Joint Statement on Liberalization of Logistics Services (TN/S/W/34)

 Joint Statement on Legal Services (TN/S/W/37 and S/CSC/W/46)

 Legal Services – Objectives for Further Liberalisation and Limitations to be Removed (JOB(05)/276)

 Joint Statement on Liberalization of Construction and Related Engineering Services (JOB(05)/130) 

 Joint Statement on Liberalization of Financial Services (JOB(05)/17) 

 Working Toward a Productive Information Exchange (in the Working Party on GATS Rules) 

(JOB(05)/5) 

 Statement on Services of Common Interest in the Energy Sector (JOB(06)/17) 

 Implementation of the Modalities for the Special Treatment for Least Developed Country Members in 

the Trade in Services Negotiations (JOB(06)/77) 

 Revised Services Offer (TN/S/O/USA/Rev.1) 

 Review of Progress in Telecommunications Services (JOB(07)/199) 

 Review of Progress in Postal and Courier Services, including Express Delivery Collective Request 

(JOB(07)/200) 

 

Negotiating Group on Market Access

 Tariffs & Trade Data Needs Assessment (TN/MA/W/2) 

 Negotiations on Environmental Goods (TN/MA/W/3 and TN/TE/W/8) 

 Modalities Proposal (TN/MA/W/18) 

 Proposal on Modalities for Addressing Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) (TN/MA/W/18/Add.1) 

 Revenue Implications of Trade Liberalization (TN/MA/W/18/Add.2) 

 Vertical NTB Modality (TN/MA/W/18/Add.3) 

 Contribution on an Environmental Goods Modality (TN/TE/W/38) & (TN/MA/W/18/Add.5) 

 Liberalizing Trade in Environmental Goods (TN/MA/W/3, TN/MA/W/18/Add.4, Add.5, and Add.7) 

 Non-Tariff Barrier Notifications (TN/MA/W/46/Add.8) 
 Non-Tariff Barrier Notifications – Revision (TN/MA/W/46/Add.8/Rev.1)

 Non-Agricultural Market Access: Modalities (TN/MA/W/44) 

 Contribution by Canada, European Communities and United States, Non-Agricultural Market Access: 

Modalities (JOB(03)/163) 

 Progress Report: Discussions on Forestry NTBs (TN/MA/W/48/Add.1) 

 Negotiating NTBs Related to Remanufacturing and Refurbishing (TN/MA/W/18/Add.11) 

 A View To Harmonize Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Labeling Requirements 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.12) 

 Progress Report: WTO NAMA Discussions on Autos NTBs (TN/MA/W/18/Add.9) 

 Tariff Elimination in the Gems and Jewelry Sector (TN/MA/W/61) 

 Tariff Liberalization in the Forest Products Sector (TN/MA/W/64) 

 Tariff Elimination in the Electronics/Electrical Sector (TN/MA/W/59) 

 Initial List of Environmental Goods (TN/MA/W/18/Add.7 or TN/TE/W/52) 

 Treatment of Non Ad Valorem Technical Tariffs (TN/MA/W/18/Add.8) 

 Tariff Liberalization in the Chemicals Sector (TN/MA/W/58) 

 How to Create a Critical Mass Sectoral Initiative (TN/MA/W/55) 

 U.S. Proposal on Negotiating NTBs Related to the Auto Sector (TN/MA/W/18/Add.6) 

 Non-Tariff Barriers Building Codes and the Wood Products Sector (TN/MA/W/48) 

 Non-Tariff Barriers – Requests (TN/MA/NTR/3)

 Tariff Elimination in the Electronics/Electrical Sector (TN/MA/W/69) 

 Open Access to Enhanced Healthcare (JOB(06)/35) 

 Progress Report: NTB Discussions Related to Remanufactured and Refurbished Goods 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.10) and (TN/MA/W/18/Add.10/Corr.1) 

 Tariff Liberalisation in the Forest Products Sector (TN/MA/W/75) 

 Negotiating Text on Textiles, Apparel, Footwear and Travel Goods Labeling Requirements 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.14) 

 Tariff Liberalization in the Chemicals Sector (TN/MA/W/72) 

 Progress Report: Sectoral Discussions on Tariff Elimination in the Chemicals Sector 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.1)

 Tariff Elimination in the Electronics/Electrical Sector JOB(06)/85 

 Negotiating Proposal on Tariff Liberalisation in the Forest Products Sector JOB(06)/128 

 Market Access for Environmental Goods TN/MA/W/70 

 Negotiating Proposal on Tariff Elimination in the Gems and Jewellery Sector TN/MA/W/61/Add.2 

 Swiss Dual Proposal JOB(05)/36 

 Analytical Contributions June 2005 JOB(05)/97 

 Room Document for Simulation Presentation March 06. Actual doc # unknown. 

 Negotiating Text on Liberalizing Trade in Remanufactured Goods (TN/MA/W/18/Add.15)

 Revised U.S. Negotiating Text on Liberalizing Trade in Remanufactured Goods 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.16)

 Regulation of Remanufactured Goods: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions 

(JOB(07)/60)

 Non-Tariff Barriers – Requests (TN/MA/NTR/3/Add.2)

 Proposal for Modifications to "Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of 

Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers” (TN/MA/W/88) NTBs (JOB(07)/145)

 Reducing Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Labeling of Textiles, Apparel, Footwear and Travel 

Goods – HS Classifications of Travel Goods (JOB(07)/59) 

 Reducing Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Labelling of Textiles, Apparel, Footwear 

and Travel Goods - U.S. Responses to U.S. Questions (JOB(06)/266/Add.1)
 Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade related to Textiles, Clothing and Footwear - U.S. answers to 

Questionnaire by the European Communities (JOB(07)/22) 

 Communication from the European Communities and the United States on NTBs related to 

Textiles, Apparel, Footwear and Clothing (TN/MA/W/93)

 Negotiating Text on Liberalizing Trade in Remanufactured Goods 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.16/Rev.1)

 Illustrative Examples of Remanufactured Goods (JOB(07)/224) 

 Negotiating Text on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to the Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic 

Compatibility (EMC) of Electronic Goods (TN/MA/W/105 Rev.1) 

 Negotiating Protocol on Enhanced Transparency on Export Licensing (TN/MA/W/15/Add.4/Rev.1) 

 Communication from the United States on Automotive NTBs (JOB(08)/39) 

 Non Paper on “Committee-First” for the “Horizontal Mechanism”, TN/MA/W/106 of 9 May 2008 

(JOB(08)/45) 

 Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to Standards, Technical Regulations, and Conformity 

Assessment Procedures for Automotive Products (JOB (08)/46) 

 Sectoral Negotiations in Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) (TN/MA/W/97/Rev.1) 

 Joint paper on Revised Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) 

(TN/MA/W/95) 

 Communication from the European Communities and the United States for an Anti-Concentration 

Clause in NAMA (TN/MA/W/96) 

 Tariff Elimination in the Sports Equipment Sector (TN/MA/W/85) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from the Republic of Korea on Negotiating Text on 

Textiles, Apparel Footwear and Travel Goods Labeling (TN/MA/W/113) 

 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions on Negotiating Text on Textiles, Apparel Footwear and 

Travel Goods Labeling (TN/MA/W/114) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from Singapore on Negotiating Text on Textiles, Apparel 

Footwear and Travel Goods Labeling (TN/MA/W/116) 

 Revised Negotiating Text on Textiles, Apparel Footwear and Travel Goods Labeling 

(TN/MA/W/93/Rev/1) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from New Zealand, Switzerland, and China on Negotiating 

Text on Textiles, Apparel Footwear and Travel Goods Labeling (JOB(09)/162) 

 Compendium of Questions and Answers on Negotiating Text on Textiles, Apparel Footwear and 

Travel Goods Labeling (TN/MA/W/123) 

 Revised Negotiating Text on NTBs Pertaining to the Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic 

Compatibility of Electronic Goods (TN/MA/W/105/Rev.2) 

 Answers to Questions from Singapore on U.S. Negotiating Text on NTBs Pertaining to the Electrical 

Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility of Electronic Goods (TN/MA/W/115) 

 Answers to Questions from Thailand on U.S. Negotiating Text on NTBs Pertaining to the Electrical 

Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility of Electronic Goods (JOB(09)/37) 

 Answers to Questions from Canada on U.S. Autos and Electronics NTBs Negotiating Texts 

(JOB(09)/157) 

 Compendium of Questions and Answers on Agreement on NTBs Pertaining to the Electrical Safety 

and Electromagnetic Compatibility of Electronic Goods (TN/MA/W/125) 

 Revised Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to Standards, Technical Regulations, and 

Conformity Assessment Procedures for Automotive Products (TN/MA/W/120) 

 Answers to Questions from Singapore on Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to Standards, 

Technical Regulations, and Conformity Assessment Procedures for Automotive Products 

(TN/MA/W/121) 
 Compendium of Questions and Answers on Agreement on Non-Tariff Barriers Pertaining to 

Standards, Technical Regulations, and Conformity Assessment Procedures for Automotive Products 

(TN/MA/W/126) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from the Republic of Korea on the Ministerial Decision on 

Trade in Remanufactured Goods (TN/MA/W/112) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from Singapore on the Ministerial Decision on Trade in 

Remanufactured Goods (TN/MA/W/117) 

 Revised Negotiating Text on Liberalizing Trade in Remanufactured Goods 

(TN/MA/W/18/Add.16/Rev.3) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from Malaysia on the Ministerial Decision on Trade in 

Remanufactured Goods (JOB(09)/155) 

 Answer by the Co-sponsors to Questions from China on Remanufacturing (TN/MA/W/122) 

 Compendium of Questions and Answers on Ministerial Decision on Trade in Remanufactured Goods 

(TN/MA/W/124) 

 Report on 4 November 2009 Remanufacturing Workshops (JOB(09)/179 

 Revised Negotiating Text on Enhanced Transparency in Export Licensing (TN/MA/W/Add.4/Rev.4) 

 Answers by the Co-sponsors to Questions from Malaysia on Negotiating Text on Enhanced 

Transparency in Export Licensing (JOB(09)/127) 

 Compendium on Questions and Answers on Negotiating Text on Enhanced Transparency in Export 

Licensing (TN/MA/W/130) 

Negotiating Group on Rules

 Fisheries Subsidies -- Joint communication from the United States, Australia, Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, 

New Zealand, Peru, and the Philippines (TN/RL/W/3) 

 Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/W/21) 

 OECD Steel Paper (TN/RL/W/24) 

 Questions on Papers Submitted to Rules Negotiating Group (TN/RL/W/25) 

 Basic Concepts of the Trade Remedies Rules (TN/RL/W/27) 

 Special and Differential Treatment and the Subsidies Agreement (TN/RL/W/33) 

 Second Set of Questions from the United States on Papers Submitted to the Rules Negotiating Group 

(TN/RL/W/34) 

 Investigatory Procedures Under The Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements (TN/RL/W/35) 

 Communication From The United States Attaching A Communiqué From The Organization For 

Economic Cooperation And Development (OECD) (TN/RL/W/49) 

 Circumvention (TN/RL/W/50) 

 Replies To Questions Presented To The United States On Submission TN/Rl/W/27 (TN/RL/W/53) 

 Third Set Of Questions From The United States On Papers Submitted To The Rules Negotiating 

Group (TN/RL/W/54) 

 Responses By The United States To Questions From Australia On Investigatory Procedures Under 

The Anti-Dumping And Subsidies Agreements (TN/RL/W/71) 

 Identification Of Certain Major Issues Under The Anti-Dumping And Subsidies Agreements 

(TN/RL/W/72) 

 Possible Approaches To Improved Disciplines On Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/W/77) 

 Subsidies Disciplines Requiring Clarification And Improvement (TN/RL/W/78) 

 Elements Of A Steel Subsidies Agreement (TN/RL/W/95) 

 Identification of Additional Issues under the Anti-dumping and Subsidies Agreements (TN/RL/W/98) 

 Fourth Set Of Questions From The United States On Papers Submitted To The Rules Negotiating 

Group (TN/RL/W/103) 
 Further Issues Identified Under The Anti-Dumping And Subsidies Agreements For Discussion By the 

Negotiating Group On Rules (TN/RL/W/130) 

 Replies to the Questions from India on TN/RL/W/35 (TN/RL/W/147) 

 Three Issues Identified by the United States (TN/RL/W/153) 

 Accrual of Interest (TN/RL/W/168) 

 Additional Views on the Structure of the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations (TN/RL/W/169) 

 Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/W/196) (co-sponsored with Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Iceland, 

New Zealand, Pakistan and Peru) 

 Offsets for Non-Dumped Comparisons (TN/RL/W/208) 

 Allocation of Subsidy Benefits Over Time (TN/RL/GEN/4) 

 Exchange Rates (TN/RL/W/GEN/5) 

 New Shipper Reviews (TN/RL/GEN/11) 

 Allocation Periods for Subsidy Benefits (TN/RL/GEN/12) 

 Prompt Access to Non-Confidential Information (TN/RL/GEN/13) 

 Conduct of Verifications (TN/RL/GEN/15) 

 All-Others Rate (TN/RL/GEN/16) 

 Expensing Versus Allocating Subsidy Benefits (TN/RL/GEN/17/Rev.1) 

 Preliminary Determinations (TN/RL/GEN/25) 

 Circumvention (TN/RL/GEN/29) 

 Fisheries Subsidies – Programmes for Decommissioning of Vessels and Licence Retirement 

(TN/RL/GEN/41) 

 Further Submission on When and How to Allocate Subsidy Benefits Over Time (TN/RL/GEN/45) 

 Further Comments on Lesser Duty Proposals (TN/RL/GEN/58) 

 Causation (TN/RL/GEN/59) 

 Submission on Circumvention (TN/RL/GEN/71) 

 Identification of Parties (TN/RL/GEN/89) (co-sponsored with Brazil) 

 Access to Non-Confidential Information (TN/RL/GEN/90) 

 New Shipper Reviews (TN/RL/GEN/91) 

 Expanding the Prohibited “Red Light“ Subsidy Category (TN/RL/GEN/94) 

 Further Submission on Facts Available (TN/RL/GEN/105) 

 Circumvention (TN/RL/GEN/106) 

 Exchange Rates (TN/RL/GEN/107) 

 Disclosure of Essential Preliminary Legal and Factual Considerations (Mandatory Preliminary 

Determinations) (TN/RL/GEN/108) 

 Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/GEN/127) 

 Causation (TN/RL/GEN/128) 

 Definition of Domestic Industry for Perishable, Seasonal Agricultural Products (TN/RL/GEN/129) 

 Allocation and Expensing of Subsidies Benefits (TN/RL/GEN/130) 

 Collection of Anti-Dumping Duties under Article 9.3 (TN/RL/GEN/131) 

 Conduct of On-the-Spot Investigations (TN/RL/GEN/132) 

 Disclosure of Calculations in Preliminary and Final Determinations (TN/RL/GEN/133) 

 Fisheries Subsidies: Proposed New Disciplines (TN/RL/GEN/145) 

 Expanding the Prohibited Red Light Subsidy Category – Draft Text (TN/RL/GEN/146) 

 Proposal on Offsets for Non-Dumped Comparisons (TN/RL/GEN/147) 

 Fisheries Subsidies (TN/RL/W/235) (co-sponsored with Australia and New Zealand) 

 

Committee on Antidumping Practices

 Proposal for Operationalization of Art. 15 (G/ADP/AHG/W/138) 
 Draft Recommendation on Operationalizing Art. 15 (G/ADP/AHG/W/143) 

 Para. 7.4: Annual Reviews of the Antidumping Agreement (G/ADP/W/427) 

Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

 Approval of Qualifying Requests under SCM Article. 27.4, Joint communication from the United 

States, Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan and Switzerland (G/SCM/W/521) 

 Dispute Settlement Body, Special Session 

 Contribution of the United States to the Improvement of the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the 

WTO-Related to Transparency (TN/DS/W/13) 

 Negotiations on Improvements And Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding on 

Improving Flexibility and Member Control in WTO Dispute Settlement (TN/DS/W/28)

 Further Contribution of The United States to The Improvement of The Dispute Settlement 

Understanding of the WTO Related to Transparency (TN/DS/W/46) 

 Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding on 

Improving Flexibility and Member Control in WTO Dispute Settlement, Joint communication from 

United States and Chile (TN/DS/W/52) 

 Some Questions for Consideration on Item(f) (TN/DS/W/74) 

 Contribution of the United States on Some Practical Considerations in Improving the Dispute 

Settlement Understanding of the WTO Related to Transparency and Open Meetings (TN/DS/W/79) 

 Further Contribution of the United States on Improving Flexibility and Member Control in WTO 

Dispute Settlement (TN/DS/W/82) 

 Further Contribution of the United States on Improving Flexibility and Member Control in WTO 

Dispute Settlement, Addendum (TN/DS/W/82/Add.1) 

 Further Contribution of the United States on Improving Flexibility and Member Control in WTO 

Dispute Settlement, Addendum, Corrigendum (TN/DS/W/82/Add.1/Corr.1) 

 Further Contribution of the United States to the Improvement of the Dispute Settlement 

Understanding of the WTO Related to Transparency - Revised Legal Drafting (TN/DS/W/86)

 Dispute Settlement Body - Special Session - Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the 

Dispute Settlement Understanding - Further Contribution of the United States on Improving 

Flexibility and Member Control - Addendum (TN/DS/W/82/Add.2) 

 Flexibility and Member Control - Revised Textual Proposal by Chile and the United States 

(TN/DS/W/89) 

Trade Facilitation 

 Article VIII - Fees and Formalities (G/C/W/384) 

 Article X - Publication and Administration (G/C/W/400) 

 Integrated and Comprehensive Approach to Special and Differential Treatment (G/C/W/451) 

 Communication on Trade Facilitation (JOB(04)/103) 

 Introduction to Proposals by the United States of America (TN/TF/W/11) 

 Advance Binding Rulings (TN/TF/W/12) 

 Proposal on Transparency and Publication (TN/TF/W/13) 

 Communication from the United States (TN/TF/W/14) 

 Express Shipments (TN/TF/W/15) 

 Release of Goods (TN/TF/W/21) 

 Consularization - Proposal from Uganda and the United States (TN/TF/W/22) 

 Multilateral Mechanism - Proposal from India and the United States (TN/TF/W/57) 
 United States Assistance on Trade Facilitation (TN/TF/W/71) 

 Communication from Australia, Canada and the United States - Draft Text on Advance Rulings 

(TN/TF/W/125) 

 Communication from Uganda and the United States – Consularization (TN/TF/W/86 and Add.1) 

 Communication from Uganda and the United States – Consularization (TN/TF/W/104) 

 Communication from the United States - Express Shipments (TN/TF/W/91) 

 Communication from Chile, Peru, and the United States - Internet Publication (TN/TF/W/89) 

 Communication from Australia, Canada, and the United States - Common Elements of Advance 

Rulings (TN/TF/W/80) 

 Communication from the United States – Draft Text on Internet Publication (TN/TF/W/145) 

 Communication from the United States – Draft Text on Expedited Shipments (TN/TF/W/144 and 

Rev.1,2 &3) 

 Communication from the United States United States – Assistance on Trade Facilitation 

(TN/TF/W/151) 

 Communication From Australia, Canada, Turkey And The United States – Draft Text On Advance 

Rulings (TN/TF/W/153 and Rev.1) 

 Communication From Uganda And The United States – Prohibiting Consularization Requirements: 

Fulfilling A Longstanding Trade Facilitation Objective (TN/TF/W/156) 

 Communication from the United States – Transition Provisions for Developing and Least Developed 

Country Members (TN/TF/W/166) 

Committee on Trade and Environment, Regular and Special Session 

 Sub-Paragraph 31 (i) of the Doha Declaration – Relationship between existing WTO rules and 

specific trade obligations set out in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) (TN/TE/W/20 

and TN/TE/W/40) 

 Sub-Paragraph 31 (ii) of the Doha Declaration - Procedures for information exchange between MEA 

Secretariats and relevant WTO committees and criteria for granting MEA observer status 

(TN/TE/W/5 and TN/TE/W/70) 

 Sub-Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration – Market access for environmental goods and services 

(TN/TE/W/8, TN/TE/W/34, TN/TE/W/38, TN/TE/W/52, TN/TE/W/64, TN/TE/W/65, JOB(06)140 

and JOB(06)169, JOB(07)/54, and JOB(07)193)

 Paragraph 33 of the Doha Declaration (WT/CTE/W/227)

Six dual submissions on Environmental Goods to the Committee on Trade and Environment Special 

Session and the Negotiating Group on Market Access are also listed under the Negotiating Group on 

Market Access. 

Council on TRIPS, Regular & Special Session 

 Questions and Answers: Comparison of Proposals (TN/IP/W/1) 

 Issues for Discussion, Article 23.4 (TN/IP/W/2) 

 Proposal for a Multilateral System of Registration and Protection of Geographic Indications for Wine 

& Spirits Based on Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement (TN/IP/W/5) 

 Multilateral System of Registration and Protection of Geographic Indications for Wine & Spirits 

(TN/IP/W/6) 

 Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (IP/C/W/340) 

 Second Submission on Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health 

(IP/C/W/358) 

 Implications of Article 23 Extension (IP/C/W/386) 
 Moratorium to Address Needs of Developing and Least-Developed Members with No or Insufficient 

Manufacturing Capacities in the Pharmaceutical Sector (IP/C/W/396) 

 Joint Proposal for a Multilateral System of Notification and Registration of Geographical Indications 

for Wines and Spirits (TN/IP/W/9) 

 Article 27.3(B), Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection of 

Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IP/C/W/434) 

 Technology Transfer Practices of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Departmental Therapeutics 

Program (IP/C/W/341) 

 Access to Genetic Resources: Regime of the United States’ National Parks (IP/C/W/393) 

 Proposed Draft TRIPS Council Decision on the Establishment of a Multilateral System of 

Notification and Registration of Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits (TN/IP/W/10 and 

Add.1) 

 Article 27.3(B), Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and the Protection of 

Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IP/C/W/449) 

 Comments on Implementation of the 30 August 2003 Agreement (Solution) on the TRIPS Agreement 

and Public Health (IP/C/W/444)

 Relationship between the Trips Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection of Traditional 

Knowledge and Folklore (IP/C/W/469) 

Committee on Trade and Development, Special Session 

 Remarks on the Review of Special and Differential Treatment (TN/CTD/W/9) 

 Monitoring Mechanism (TN/CTD/W/19)

 Approach to Agreement-Specific Proposals (TN/CTD/W/27)

Working Group on Transparency in Government Procurement 

 Capacity Building Questions (WT/WGTGP/W/34) 

 Workplan Proposal (WT/WGTGP/W/35)

 Considerations Related to Enforcement of an Agreement on Transparency in Government

Procurement (WT/WGTGP/W/38)

Work Program on Electronic Commerce 

 Work Program on Electronic Commerce (WT/GC/W/493/Rev.1) 

Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment 

 Covering FDI & Portfolio Investment in an Agreement (WT/WGTI/W/142) 

Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy 

 Technical Assistance (WT/WGTCP/W/185) 

 Hardcore Cartels (WT/WGTCP/W/203) 

 Voluntary Cooperation (WT/WGTCP/W/204) 

 Transparency & Non-discrimination (WT/WGTCP/W/218) 

 Procedural Fairness (WT/WGTCP/W/219) 

 The Benefits of Peer Review in the WTO Competition Context (WT/WGTCP/W/233) 

Updated: 28 Dec 2009
WTO Affinity Groups in the DDA 

(As of December 31, 2009) 

G-20 G-33 G-10 NAMA-11 LDCs in WTO

Argentina Antigua- Barbuda Chinese Taipei Argentina Angola 

Bolivia Barbados Iceland Brazil** Bangladesh

Brazil** Belize Israel Egypt Benin 

Chile Benin Japan India** Burkina Faso 

China Bolivia Korea Indonesia Burundi 

Cuba Botswana Liechtenstein Namibia Cambodia 

Ecuador China Mauritius Philippines Central Africa Rep 

Egypt Congo Norway South Africa** Chad 

Guatemala Cote d’Ivoire Switzerland** Tunisia Congo, DRC 

India Cuba Venezuela Djibouti 

Indonesia Dominica Gambia 

Mexico Dominican Republic. Guinea 

Nigeria El Salvador Guinea Bissau 

Pakistan Grenada Haiti 

Paraguay Guatemala Lesotho 

Peru Guyana Madagascar 

Philippines Haiti Malawi 

South Africa Honduras Maldives 

Tanzania India Mali 

Thailand Indonesia** Mauritania 

Uruguay Jamaica Mozambique 

Venezuela Kenya Myanmar (Burma) 

Zimbabwe Korea Nepal 

Madagascar Niger 

 Mauritius Rwanda 

 Mongolia Senegal 

 Mozambique Sierra Leone 

 Nicaragua Solomon Islands 

 Nigeria Tanzania 

 Pakistan Togo 

 Panama Uganda 

 Peru Zambia 

 Philippines 

 St. Kitts &Nevis LDCs acceding:

 St. Lucia Afghanistan 

 St. Vincent & Grenadines Bhutan 

 Senegal Comoros 

 Sri Lanka Equatorial Guinea 

 Suriname Ethiopia 

 Tanzania Laos 

 Trinidad &Tobago Liberia 

 Turkey Samoa 

 Uganda Sao Tome & Principe

 Venezuela Sudan

 Zambia Vanuatu 

 Zimbabwe Yemen 

 

 WTO Observers:

 Holy See* 

** = Group Coordinator *Permanent Observer Status 
MEMBERSHIP OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

as of December 31, 2009 (153 Members) 

Government Entry into Force/ 

Membership Government Entry into Force/ Membership

Albania September 8, 2000 Democratic Republic of the 

Congo 

January 1, 1997

Angola November 23, 1996 Denmark January 1, 1995

Antigua and Barbuda January 1, 1995 Djibouti May 31, 1995

Argentina January 1, 1995 Dominica January 1, 1995

Armenia February 5, 2003 Dominican Republic March 9, 1995

Australia January 1, 1995 Ecuador January 21, 1996

Austria January 1, 1995 Egypt June 30, 1995

Bahrain0078 January 1, 1995 El Salvador May 7, 1995

Bangladesh January 1, 1995 Estonia November 13, 1999

Barbados January 1, 1995 European Union January 1, 1995

Belgium January 1, 1995 Fiji January 14, 1996

Belize January 1, 1995 Finland January 1, 1995

Benin February 22, 1996 France January 1, 1995

Bolivia September 12, 1995 Gabon January 1, 1995

Botswana May 31, 1995 Georgia June 14, 2000

Brazil January 1, 1995 Germany January 1, 1995

Brunei Darussalam January 1, 1995 Ghana January 1, 1995

Bulgaria December 1, 1996 Greece January 1, 1995

Burkina Faso June 3, 1995 Grenada February 22, 1996

Burundi July 23, 1995 Guatemala July 21, 1995

Cambodia October 12. 2004 Guinea October 25, 1995

Cameroon December 13, 1995 Guinea Bissau May 31, 1995

Canada January 1, 1995 Guyana January 1, 1995

Cape Verde July 23, 2008

Central African Republic May 31, 1995 Haiti January 30, 1996

Chad October 19, 1996 Honduras January 1, 1995

Chile January 1, 1995 Hong Kong, China January 1, 1995

China December 11, 2001 Hungary January 1, 1995

Colombia April 30, 1995 Iceland January 1, 1995

Congo March 27, 1997 India January 1, 1995

Costa Rica January 1, 1995 Indonesia January 1, 1995

Côte d'Ivoire January 1, 1995 Ireland January 1, 1995

Croatia November 30, 2000 Israel April 21, 1995

Cuba April 20, 1995 Italy January 1, 1995

Cyprus July 30, 1995 Jamaica March 9, 1995

Czech Republic January 1, 1995 Japan January 1, 1995
MEMBERSHIP OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (cont.) 

Government Entry into Force/ 

Membership Government Entry into Force/ Membership

Jordan April 11, 2000 Norway January 1, 1995

Kenya January 1, 1995 Oman November 9, 2000

Korea, Republic of January 1, 1995 Pakistan January 1, 1995

Kuwait January 1, 1995 Panama September 6, 1997

Kyrgyz Republic December 20, 1998 Papua New Guinea June 9, 1996

Latvia February 10, 1999 Paraguay January 1, 1995

Lesotho May 31, 1995 Peru January 1, 1995

Liechtenstein September 1, 1995 Philippines January 1, 1995

Lithuania May 31, 2001 Poland July 1, 1995

Luxembourg January 1, 1995 Portugal January 1, 1995

Macao, China January 1, 1995 Qatar January 13, 1996

Macedonia April 4, 2003 Romania January 1, 1995

Madagascar November 17, 1995 Rwanda May 22, 1996

Malawi May 31, 1995 Saint Kitts and Nevis February 21, 1996

Malaysia January 1, 1995 Saint Lucia January 1, 1995

Maldives May 31, 1995 Saint Vincent and the 

Grenadines 

January 1, 1995

Mali May 31, 1995 Saudi Arabia December 11, 2005

Malta January 1, 1995 Senegal January 1, 1995

Mauritania May 31, 1995 Sierra Leone July 23, 1995

Mauritius January 1, 1995 Singapore January 1, 1995

Mexico January 1, 1995 Slovak Republic January 1, 1995

Moldova July 26, 2001 Slovenia July 30, 1995

Mongolia January 29, 1997 Solomon Islands July 26, 1996

Morocco January 1, 1995 South Africa January 1, 1995

Mozambique August 26, 1995 Spain January 1, 1995

Myanmar January 1, 1995 Sri Lanka January 1, 1995

Namibia January 1, 1995 Suriname January 1, 1995

Nepal April 14, 2003 Swaziland January 1, 1995

Netherlands - For the 

Kingdom in Europe and 

Netherlands Antilles 

January 1, 1995 Sweden January 1, 1995

New Zealand January 1, 1995 Switzerland July 1, 1995

Nicaragua September 3, 1995 Taiwan (referred to in the 

WTO as Chinese Taipei) 

January 1, 2002

Niger December 13, 1996 Tanzania January 1, 1995

Nigeria January 1, 1995 Thailand January 1, 1995

 Ukraine May 16, 2008

The Gambia October 23, 1996 United Kingdom January 1, 1995

Togo May 31, 1995 United States of America January 1, 1995

Tonga July 27, 2007 Uruguay January 1, 1995

Trinidad and Tobago March 1, , 1995 Venezuela January 1, 1995

Tunisia March 29, 1995 Vietnam January 11, 2007

Turkey March 26, 1995 Zambia January 1, 1995 Ugan

Uganda January 1, 1995 Zimbabwe March 5, 1995
United Arab Emirates April 10, 1996 
 

2010-2011 PROPOSED REVISED CONSOLIDATED 

WTO BUDGET FOR THE WTO SECRETARIAT AND THE APPELLATE BODY AND ITS SECRETARIAT

(in Swiss Francs)

Part 

Line 2009 Inc/Dec 

2010 2010 Inc/Dec  2011 2011 Diff. 2010 

Diff. 

2011 

A Sect 1 Work Years 

 (a)Salary 86,811,900 1,619,400 88,431,300 2,386,800 90,818,100 1.87% 2.70%

 (b)Pension 17,639,300 1,239,200 18,878,500 304,700 19,183,200 7.03% 1.61%

 (c)Common Staff Costs 16,986,000 1,303,500 18,289,500 216,700 18,506,200 7.67% 1.18%

 Sect 2 Temporary Assistance 14,975,500 899,800 15,875,300 117,400 15,992,700 6.01% 0.74%

B Sect 3 Communications 

 (a) Telecommunications 506,500 (20,000) 486,500 20,000 506,500 (3.95%) 4.11%

 (b) Postal Charges 1,305,000 (5,000) 1,300,000 (20,000) 1,280,000 (0.38%) (1.54%)

 Sect 4 Building Facilities 

 (a) Rental 609,000 11,000 620,000 5,000 625,000 1.81% 0.81%

 (b) Utilities 1,876,000 38,000 1,914,000 15,000 1,929,000 2.03% 0.78%

 (c) Maintenance and Insurance 1,211,000 98,000 1,309,000 3,000 1,312,000 8.09% 0.23%

 Sect 5 Permanent Equipment 

 (a)Permanent Equipment 1,266,000 (263,000) 1,003,000 22,000 1,025,000 (20.77%) 2.19%

 (b)Perm. Equipment Lease 932,000 (805,000) 127,000 (63,000) 64,000 (86.37%) (49.61%)

 Sect 6 Expendable Supplies 1,305,000 (114,000) 1,191,000 90,000 1,281,000 (8.74%) 7.56%

 Sect 7 Contractual Services 

 (a) Reproduction 1,425,000 (20,000) 1,405,000 215,600 1,620,600 (1.40%) 15.35%

 (b) Office Automation 3,756,000 35,000 3,791,000 (426,000) 3,365,000 0.93% (11.24%)

 (c)Other 282,000 (63,000) 219,000 19,000 238,000 (22.34%) 8.68%

 (d) Security Outsourcing 3,787,000 96,000 3,883,000 130,000 4,013,000 2.53% 3.35%

C Sect 8 Staff Overheads 

 (a) Training 1,775,000 (250,000) 1,525,000 0 1,525,000 (14.08%) 0.00%

 (b) Insurance 2,622,500 185,500 2,808,000 203,000 3,011,000 7.07% 7.23%

 (c) Joint Services 204,000 51,000 255,000 0 255,000 25.00% 0.00%

 (d) Miscellaneous 32,000 4,000 36,000 0 36,000 12.50% 0.00%

 Sect 9 Missions 

 (a)Missions Official 1,533,000 0 1,533,000 0 1,533,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (b)Missions Technical 1,406,000 0 1,406,000 0 1,406,000 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 10 Trade Policy Courses 3,823,600 (508,600) 3,315,000 0 3,315,000 (13.30%) 0.00%

 Sect 11 Various 

 

(a) Representation and 

 Hospitality 299,000 0 299,000 0 299,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (b) Dispute Settlement Panels 1,247,000 (260,000) 987,000 0 987,000 (20.85%) 0.00%

 (c) Experts 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (d) Appellate Body Members 789,700 3,800 793,500 3,800 797,300 0.48% 0.48%

 (e) Library 700,000 0 700,000 0 700,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (f) Publications 790,000 13,000 803,000 0 803,000 1.65% 0.00%

 (g) Public Information Activities 270,000 110,000 380,000 0 380,000 40.74% 0.00%

 (h) External Auditors 40,000 10,000 50,000 0 50,000 25.00% 0.00%

 (i) Ministerial Operating Fund 0 600,000 600,000 0 600,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (j) ISO 57,000 0 57,000 0 57,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (k) Other 80,000 50,000 130,000 0 130,000 62.50% 0.00%

 

(l) Appellate Body Operating 

 Fund 1,575,700 (75,700) 1,500,000 100,000 1,600,000 (4.80%) 6.67%

 

(m) Security Enhancement 

 Programme 330,000 (330,000) 0 0 0 (100.00%) 0.00%

 Sect 12 Unforeseen 100,000 (100,000) 0 0 0 (100.00%) 0.00%

D Sect 13 ITC 16,859,900 1,179,000 18,038,900 872,100 18,911,000 6.99% 4.83%

Grand Total 189,257,600 4,731,900 193,989,500 4,215,100 198,204,600 2.50% 2.17%
 

2010-2011 PROPOSED REVISED BUDGET FOR 

THE WTO SECRETARIAT

(in Swiss Francs) 

Part 

Section/Line 2009 Inc/Dec 

2010 2010 Inc/Dec 2011 2011 Diff  2010 

Diff. 

2011 

A Sect 1 Work Years 

 (a)Salary 84,732,900 1,608,900 86,341,800 

2,328,30

0 88,670,100 1.90% 2.70% 

 (b)Pension 17,216,300 1,216,700 18,433,000 294,200 18,727,200 7.07% 1.60% 

 (c)Common Staff Costs 16,587,000 1,272,000 17,859,000 212,200 18,071,200 7.67% 1.19% 

 Sect 2 Temporary Assistance 14,909,900 899,800 15,809,700 117,400 15,927,100 6.03% 0.74% 

B Sect 3 Communications 

 (a) Telecommunications 500,000 (20,000) 480,000 20,000 500,000 (4.00%) 4.17% 

 (b) Postal Charges 1,305,000 (5,000) 1,300,000 (20,000) 1,280,000 (0.38%) (1.54%) 

 Sect 4 Building Facilities 

 (a) Rental 609,000 11,000 620,000 5,000 625,000 1.81% 0.81% 

 (b) Utilities 1,863,000 38,000 1,901,000 15,000 1,916,000 2.04% 0.79% 

 

(c) Maintenance and 

Insurance 1,206,000 98,000 1,304,000 3,000 1,307,000 8.13% 0.23% 

 Sect 5 Permanent Equipment 

 (a)Permanent Equipment 1,241,000 (263,000) 978,000 22,000 1,000,000 (21.19%) 2.25% 

 (b)Perm. Equipment Lease 932,000 (805,000) 127,000 (63,000) 64,000 (86.37%) (49.61%) 

 Sect 6 Expendable Supplies 1,285,000 (114,000) 1,171,000 90,000 1,261,000 (8.87%) 7.69% 

 Sect 7 Contractual Services 

 (a) Reproduction 1,410,000 (20,000) 1,390,000 215,600 1,605,600 (1.42%) 15.51% 

 (b) Office Automation 3,746,000 35,000 3,781,000 (426,000) 3,355,000 0.93% (11.27%) 

 (c) Other 282,000 (63,000) 219,000 19,000 238,000 (22.34%) 8.68% 

 (d) Security Outsourcing 3,787,000 96,000 3,883,000 130,000 4,013,000 2.53% 3.35% 

C Sect 8 Staff Overheads 

 (a) Training 1,750,000 (250,000) 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 (14.29%) 0.00% 

 (b) Insurance 2,610,500 185,500 2,796,000 203,000 2,999,000 7.11% 7.26% 

 (c) Joint Services 204,000 51,000 255,000 0 255,000 25.00% 0.00% 

 (d) Miscellaneous 30,000 4,000 34,000 0 34,000 13.33% 0.00% 

 Sect 9 Missions 

 (a)Missions Official 1,496,000 0 1,496,000 0 1,496,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 (b)Missions Technical 1,406,000 0 1,406,000 0 1,406,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 Sect 10 Trade Policy Courses 3,823,600 (508,600) 3,315,000 0 3,315,000 (13.30%) 0.00% 

 Sect 11 Various 

 

(a) Representation and 

Hospitality 298,000 0 298,000 0 298,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 (b) Dispute Settlement Panels 1,247,000 (260,000) 987,000 0 987,000 (20.85%) 0.00% 

 (c) Experts 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 (e) Library 690,000 0 690,000 0 690,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 (f) Publications 790,000 13,000 803,000 0 803,000 1.65% 0.00% 

 

(g) Public Information 

Activities 270,000 110,000 380,000 0 380,000 40.74% 0.00% 

 (h) External Auditors 40,000 10,000 50,000 0 50,000 25.00% 0.00% 

 (i) Ministerial Operating Fund 0 600,000 600,000 0 600,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 (j) ISO 57,000 0 57,000 0 57,000 0.00% 0.00% 

 (k) Other 80,000 50,000 130,000 0 130,000 62.50% 0.00% 

 

(m) Security Enhancement 

 Programme 330,000 (330,000) 0 0 0 (100.00%) 0.00% 

 Sect 12 Unforeseen 100,000 (100,000) 0 0 0 (100.00%) 0.00% 

D Sect 13 ITC 16,859,900 1,179,000 18,038,900 872,100 18,911,000 6.99% 4.83% 

Grand Total 183,744,100 4,739,300 188,483,400 

4,037,80

0 

192,521,20

0 2.58% 2.14% 
 

2010-2011 PROPOSED REVISED BUDGET FOR 

THE APPELLATE BODY AND ITS SECRETARIAT 

(in Swiss Francs)

Part 

Section/Line 2009 Inc/Dec 

2010 2010 Inc/Dec2011 2011 Diff. 2010 

Diff. 

2011 

A Sect 1 Work Years 

 (a)Salary 2,079,000 10,500 2,089,500 58,500 2,148,000 0.51% 2.80%

 (b)Pension 423,000 22,500 445,500 10,500 456,000 5.32% 2.36%

 (c)Common Staff Costs 399,000 31,500 430,500 4,500 435,000 7.89% 1.05%

 Sect 2 Temporary Assistance 65,600 0 65,600 0 65,600 0.00% 0.00%

B Sect 3 Communications 

 (a) Telecommunications 6,500 0 6,500 0 6,500 0.00% 0.00%

 (b) Postal Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 4 Building Facilities 

 (b) Utilities 13,000 0 13,000 0 13,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (c) Maintenance and Insurance 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 5 Permanent Equipment 

 (a)Permanent Equipment 25,000 0 25,000 0 25,000 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 6 Expendable Supplies 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 7 Contractual Services 

 (a) Reproduction 15,000 0 15,000 0 15,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (b) Office Automation 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0.00% 0.00%

C Sect 8 Staff Overheads 

 (a) Training 25,000 0 25,000 0 25,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (b) Insurance 12,000 0 12,000 0 12,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (d) Miscellaneous 2,000 0 2,000 0 2,000 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 9 Missions 

 (a)Missions Official 37,000 0 37,000 0 37,000 0.00% 0.00%

 Sect 11 Various 

 (a) Representation and Hospitality 1,000 0 1,000 0 1,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (d) Appellate Body Members 789,700 3,800 793,500 3,800 797,300 0.48% 0.48%

 (e) Library 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0.00% 0.00%

 (g) Public Information Activities 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

 (l) Appellate Body Operating Fund 1,575,700 (75,700) 1,500,000 100,000 1,600,000 (4.80%) 6.67%

Grand Total 5,513,500 (7,400) 5,506,100 177,300 5,683,400 (0.13%) 3.22%
 

2010 REVISED DRAFT SCALE OF CONTRIBUTIONS 

(in Swiss francs with a minimum contribution of 0.015%) 

MEMBER 

2009 

Contributions 

after 

Redistribution 

Surplus 

2010 

Contribution 

before 

Surplus 

Refund 

Surplus 

2008 

Contribution 

after 

Redistributio

n Surplus 

20081

2010 

Contribut

ion 

% 

Interest2

earned in 

2008 for 

2010 

 

2010 net 

Contribution

Albania 40,414 42,284 (616) 41,668 0.022% (321) 41,347 

Angola 246,158 307,520 (4,480) 303,040 0.160% (1,470) 301,570 

Antigua and Barbuda 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (248) 28,162 

Argentina 578,655 643,870 (9,380) 634,490 0.335% (3,469) 631,021 

Armenia 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (179) 28,231 

Australia 2,103,365 2,225,676 (32,424) 2,193,252 1.158% (16,858) 2,176,394 

Austria 2,509,342 2,464,004 (35,896) 2,428,108 1.282% (22,665) 2,405,443 

Bahrain 148,797 174,902 (2,548) 172,354 0.091% (709) 171,645 

Bangladesh 185,537 194,122 (2,828) 191,294 0.101% (930) 190,364 

Barbados 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (89) 28,321 

Belgium 4,708,231 4,868,426 (70,924) 4,797,502 2.533% (35,658) 4,761,844 

Belize 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (94) 28,316 

Benin 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (28) 28,382 

Bolivia 44,088 48,050 (700) 47,350 0.025% (8) 47,342 

Botswana 62,458 65,348 (952) 64,396 0.034% (362) 64,034 

Brazil 1,647,789 1,814,368 (26,432) 1,787,936 0.944% (12,023) 1,775,913 

Brunei Darussalam 71,643 63,426 (924) 62,502 0.033% (621) 61,881 

Bulgaria 260,854 301,754 (4,396) 297,358 0.157% (2,053) 295,305 

Burkina Faso 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (7) 28,403 

Burundi 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Cambodia 62,458 67,270 (980) 66,290 0.035% (207) 66,083 

Cameroon 51,436 65,348 (952) 64,396 0.034% (203) 64,193 

Canada 6,174,157 6,175,386 (89,964) 6,085,422 3.213% (55,438) 6,029,984 

Cape Verde 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Central African Republic 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Chad 27,555 42,284 (616) 41,668 0.022% 0 41,668 

Chile 611,721 688,076 (10,024) 678,052 0.358% (2,374) 675,678 

China, People's Republic of 10,834,626 12,404,588 (180,712) 12,223,876 6.454% (16,208) 12,207,668 

Colombia 356,378 388,244 (5,656) 382,588 0.202% (2,544) 380,044 

Congo 44,088 63,426 (924) 62,502 0.033% 0 62,502 

Costa Rica 157,982 163,370 (2,380) 160,990 0.085% (742) 160,248 

Côte d'Ivoire 113,894 115,320 (1,680) 113,640 0.060% 0 113,640 

Croatia 306,779 324,818 (4,732) 320,086 0.169% (2,242) 317,844 

Cuba 113,894 130,696 (1,904) 128,792 0.068% (650) 128,142 

Cyprus 121,242 126,852 (1,848) 125,004 0.066% (1,040) 123,964 

Czech Republic 1,276,715 1,433,812 (20,888) 1,412,924 0.746% (8,817) 1,404,107 

Democratic Republic of the 

Congo 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Denmark 1,807,608 1,883,560 (27,440) 1,856,120 0.980% (13,601) 1,842,519 

Djibouti 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Dominica 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Dominican Republic 170,841 169,136 (2,464) 166,672 0.088% (898) 165,774 

Ecuador 167,167 178,746 (2,604) 176,142 0.093% (438) 175,704 

Egypt 455,576 505,486 (7,364) 498,122 0.263% (1,994) 496,128 

El Salvador 99,198 98,022 (1,428) 96,594 0.051% (5) 96,589 

Estonia 161,656 180,668 (2,632) 178,036 0.094% (1,282) 176,754 

European Union 0 0 0 0 0.000% 0 0 

Fiji 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (183) 28,227 

Finland 1,173,843 1,241,612 (18,088) 1,223,524 0.646% (10,212) 1,213,312 

Former Yugoslav Republic 44,088 49,972 (728) 49,244 0.026% (388) 48,856 

 

1

 The 2008 Surplus is distributed on the same basis as the Members' assessed contributions for 2010. 

2

 Interest earned in 2008 under the Early Payment Encouragement Scheme (L/6384) to be deducted from the 2010 

contributions. 
 

2010 REVISED DRAFT SCALE OF CONTRIBUTIONS 

(in Swiss francs with a minimum contribution of 0.015%) 

MEMBER 

2009 

Contributions 

after 

Redistribution 

Surplus 

2010 

Contribution 

before 

Surplus 

Refund 

Surplus 

2008 

Contribution 

after 

Redistributio

n Surplus 

20081

2010 

Contribut

ion 

% 

Interest2

earned in 

2008 for 

2010 

 

2010 net 

Contribution

of Macedonia 

France 8,663,292 8,891,172 (129,528) 8,761,644 4.626% (70,478) 8,691,166 

Gabon 44,088 44,206 (644) 43,562 0.023% 0 43,562 

Gambia 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Georgia 36,740 44,206 (644) 43,562 0.023% (245) 43,317 

Germany 16,169,274 17,169,226 (250,124) 16,919,102 8.933% (137,433) 16,781,669 

Ghana 77,154 84,568 (1,232) 83,336 0.044% (41) 83,295 

Greece 887,271 953,312 (13,888) 939,424 0.496% (5,145) 934,279 

Grenada 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Guatemala 123,079 136,462 (1,988) 134,474 0.071% (850) 133,624 

Guinea 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Guinea-Bissau 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Guyana 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (104) 28,306 

Haiti 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (146) 28,264 

Honduras 64,295 99,944 (1,456) 98,488 0.052% 0 98,488 

Hong Kong, China 5,228,102 5,289,344 (77,056) 5,212,288 2.752% (48,305) 5,163,983 

Hungary 1,115,059 1,214,704 (17,696) 1,197,008 0.632% (9,796) 1,187,212 

Iceland 84,502 92,256 (1,344) 90,912 0.048% (629) 90,283 

India 2,283,391 2,066,150 (30,100) 2,036,050 1.075% (3,277) 2,032,773 

Indonesia 1,363,054 1,420,358 (20,692) 1,399,666 0.739% (9,868) 1,389,798 

Ireland 2,301,761 2,354,450 (34,300) 2,320,150 1.225% (15,878) 2,304,272 

Israel 878,086 889,886 (12,964) 876,922 0.463% (7,609) 869,313 

Italy 7,101,842 7,384,324 (107,576) 7,276,748 3.842% (117,838) 7,158,910 

Jamaica 80,828 80,724 (1,176) 79,548 0.042% (353) 79,195 

Japan 9,734,263 9,823,342 (143,108) 9,680,234 5.111% (63,786) 9,616,448 

Jordan 130,427 140,306 (2,044) 138,262 0.073% (779) 137,483 

Kenya 82,665 88,412 (1,288) 87,124 0.046% (76) 87,048 

Korea, Republic of 4,755,993 5,072,158 (73,892) 4,998,266 2.639% (31,183) 4,967,083 

Kuwait 475,783 545,848 (7,952) 537,896 0.284% 0 537,896 

Kyrgyz Republic 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (15) 28,395 

Latvia 124,916 144,150 (2,100) 142,050 0.075% (979) 141,071 

Lesotho 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Liechtenstein 44,088 46,128 (672) 45,456 0.024% (409) 45,047 

Lithuania 224,114 251,782 (3,668) 248,114 0.131% (1,559) 246,555 

Luxembourg 718,267 791,864 (11,536) 780,328 0.412% (5,720) 774,608 

Macao, China 137,775 149,916 (2,184) 147,732 0.078% (1,080) 146,652 

Madagascar 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (122) 28,288 

Malawi 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Malaysia 2,208,074 2,266,038 (33,012) 2,233,026 1.179% (17,906) 2,215,120 

Maldives 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (162) 28,248 

Mali 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Malta 77,154 78,802 (1,148) 77,654 0.041% (669) 76,985 

Mauritania 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Mauritius 60,621 61,504 (896) 60,608 0.032% (534) 60,074 

Mexico 3,686,859 3,699,850 (53,900) 3,645,950 1.925% (17,273) 3,628,677 

Moldova 29,392 32,674 (476) 32,198 0.017% (215) 31,983 

Mongolia 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (22) 28,388 

Morocco 299,431 326,740 (4,760) 321,980 0.170% (1,729) 320,251 

Mozambique 36,740 38,440 (560) 37,880 0.020% (292) 37,588 

Myanmar, Union of 51,436 46,128 (672) 45,456 0.024% (38) 45,418 

Namibia 38,577 42,284 (616) 41,668 0.022% (236) 41,432 

Nepal 29,392 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Netherlands 6,036,382 6,292,628 (91,672) 6,200,956 3.274% (50,769) 6,150,187 

New Zealand 459,250 467,046 (6,804) 460,242 0.243% (3,981) 456,261 

Nicaragua 38,577 42,284 (616) 41,668 0.022% 0 41,668 

Niger 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Nigeria 433,532 507,408 (7,392) 500,016 0.264% (1,535) 498,481 
 

2010 REVISED DRAFT SCALE OF CONTRIBUTIONS 

(in Swiss francs with a minimum contribution of 0.015%) 

MEMBER 

2009 

Contributions 

after 

Redistribution 

Surplus 

2010 

Contribution 

before 

Surplus 

Refund 

Surplus 

2008 

Contribution 

after 

Redistributio

n Surplus 

20081

2010 

Contribut

ion 

% 

Interest2

earned in 

2008 for 

2010 

 

2010 net 

Contribution

Norway 1,589,005 1,687,516 (24,584) 1,662,932 0.878% (12,861) 1,650,071 

Oman 224,114 244,094 (3,556) 240,538 0.127% (835) 239,703 

Pakistan 323,312 344,038 (5,012) 339,026 0.179% (1,575) 337,451 

Panama 159,819 165,292 (2,408) 162,884 0.086% (1,175) 161,709 

Papua New Guinea 38,577 36,518 (532) 35,986 0.019% (20) 35,966 

Paraguay 62,458 67,270 (980) 66,290 0.035% 0 66,290 

Peru 249,832 282,534 (4,116) 278,418 0.147% 0 278,418 

Philippines 806,443 793,786 (11,564) 782,222 0.413% (3,987) 778,235 

Poland 1,662,485 1,872,028 (27,272) 1,844,756 0.974% (13,816) 1,830,940 

Portugal 951,566 989,830 (14,420) 975,410 0.515% (1,563) 973,847 

Qatar 288,409 347,882 (5,068) 342,814 0.181% (437) 342,377 

Romania 523,545 616,962 (8,988) 607,974 0.321% (33) 607,941 

Rwanda 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (204) 28,206 

Saint Kitts and Nevis 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (159) 28,251 

Saint Lucia 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (93) 28,317 

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (133) 28,277 

Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 1,702,899 1,912,390 (27,860) 1,884,530 0.995% (12,060) 1,872,470 

Senegal 33,066 46,128 (672) 45,456 0.024% 0 45,456 

Sierra Leone 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Singapore 3,962,409 4,172,662 (60,788) 4,111,874 2.171% (34,463) 4,077,411 

Slovak Republic 551,100 641,948 (9,352) 632,596 0.334% (2,853) 629,743 

Slovenia 328,823 361,336 (5,264) 356,072 0.188% (2,643) 353,429 

Solomon Islands 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (117) 28,293 

South Africa 971,773 1,060,944 (15,456) 1,045,488 0.552% (6,402) 1,039,086 

Spain 4,812,940 5,091,378 (74,172) 5,017,206 2.649% (28,779) 4,988,427 

Sri Lanka 139,612 140,306 (2,044) 138,262 0.073% (153) 138,109 

Suriname 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Swaziland 33,066 32,674 (476) 32,198 0.017% (134) 32,064 

Sweden 2,432,188 2,565,870 (37,380) 2,528,490 1.335% (20,406) 2,508,084 

Switzerland 2,533,223 2,629,296 (38,304) 2,590,992 1.368% (22,110) 2,568,882 

Chinese Taipei 3,313,948 3,353,890 (48,860) 3,305,030 1.745% (808) 3,304,222 

Tanzania 51,436 55,738 (812) 54,926 0.029% (177) 54,749 

Thailand 1,903,132 2,014,256 (29,344) 1,984,912 1.048% (16,516) 1,968,396 

Togo 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

Tonga 27,555 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% (17) 28,393 

Trinidad and Tobago 97,361 128,774 (1,876) 126,898 0.067% (709) 126,189 

Tunisia 222,277 234,484 (3,416) 231,068 0.122% (1,447) 229,621 

Turkey 1,544,917 1,733,644 (25,256) 1,708,388 0.902% (4,319) 1,704,069 

Uganda 29,392 32,674 (476) 32,198 0.017% (29) 32,169 

Ukraine 626,417 705,374 (10,276) 695,098 0.367% (959) 694,139 

United Arab Emirates 1,489,807 1,720,190 (25,060) 1,695,130 0.895% (10,395) 1,684,735 

United Kingdom 9,721,404 9,811,810 (142,940) 9,668,870 5.105% (258,175) 9,410,695 

United States 24,773,782 24,912,964 (362,936) 24,550,028 12.962% (14,545) 24,535,483 

Uruguay 67,969 74,958 (1,092) 73,866 0.039% (150) 73,716 

Venezuela 580,492 645,792 (9,408) 636,384 0.336% (1,949) 634,435 

Viet Nam 453,739 622,728 (9,072) 613,656 0.324% (3,753) 609,903 

Zambia 36,740 44,206 (644) 43,562 0.023% (139) 43,423 

Zimbabwe 31,229 28,830 (420) 28,410 0.015% 0 28,410 

TOTAL 183,700,000 192,200,000 (2,800,000) 189,400,000 100.00% (1,327,420) 188,072,580 
 
WAIVERS CURRENTLY IN FORCE 

(As at 31 December 2009)

WAIVERS GRANTED EXPIRY 

LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to pharmaceutical products 

8 July 2002 1 January 2016 WT/L

European Communities – European Communities' preferences for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 

28 July 2006 31 December 2011 WT/L

Canada – CARIBCAN 15 December 2006 31 December 2011 WT/LCuba – Article XV:6 of GATT 1994 15 December 2006 31 December 2011 WT/LAustralia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States, Venezuela - Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds – Extension of waiver 

15 December 2006 31 December 2012 WT/L

United States – Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 27 July 2007 31 December 2016 WT/LMongolia - Export duties on raw cashmere 27 July 2007 29 January 2012 WT/LEuropean Communities – Application of Autonomous Preferential Treatment to Moldova 

7 May 2008 31 December 2013 WT/L
WAIVERS GRANTED EXPIRY 

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, European Communities, Iceland, India, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Thailand, United States and Uruguay- Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions

18 December 2008 31 December 2010 WT/L

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras; Hong Kong, China; India, Korea; Macao, China; Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, United States and Uruguay- Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions 

18 December 2008 31 December 2010 WT/L

United States - Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 27 May 2009 31 December 2014 WT/LUnited States – African Growth and Opportunity Act 27 May 2009 30 September 2015 WT/LUnited States – Andean Trade Preference Act 27 May 2009 31 December 2014 WT/LArgentina - Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions 

27 May 2009 30 April 2010 WT/L

Panama - Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff Concessions 

27 May 2009 30 April 2010 WT/L

Preferential Tariff Treatment for Least-Developed Countries 27 May 2009 30 June 2019 WT/L
 

 

Number of WTO Staff Members by Job Category on 1 January 2010 

(as per information available on 15 December 2009)

Country Senior Professional Support Total

Argentina 3 5 8

Australia 8 2 10

Austria 5 5

Bangladesh 1 1

Barbados 1 1

Belgium 3 2 5

Benin 1 1

Bolivia 3 3

Brazil 8 2 10

Bulgaria 3 3

Burundi 1 1

Canada 21 3 24

Chile 1 1 2 4

China 8 1 9

Colombia 8 2 10

Congo, The Democratic 

Republic of the

1 1

Costa Rica 2 2

Cote d'Ivoire 1 1

Cuba 1 1

Denmark 1 1 2

Ecuador 2 2

Egypt 6 6

Estonia 1 1

Finland 3 3 6

France 1 53 131 185

Germany 18 3 21

Ghana 2 2

Greece 4 2 6

Guatemala 1 1

Guinea 1 1

Honduras 1 1

Hong Kong, China 1 1

Hungary 1 1

India 1 11 2 14

Ireland 5 7 12

Italy 12 3 15

Japan 3 3

Korea, Republic of 4 4

Lesotho 1 1

Malawi 1 1

Malaysia 2 1 3

Mauritius 1 1 2

Mexico 5 5
 

 

Number of WTO Staff Members by Job Category on 1 January 2010 

(as per information available on 15 December 2009)

Country Senior Professional Support Total

Morocco 2 1 3

Netherlands 6 1 7

New Zealand 4 1 5

Nigeria 1 1

Norway 1 1 2

Pakistan 2 2

Paraguay 1 1

Peru 1 6 7

Philippines 7 2 9

Poland 2 2 4

Portugal 1 1

Romania 1 2 3

Rwanda 1 1 2

Saint Lucia 1 1

Senegal 1 1 2

South Africa 1 1

Spain 24 22 46

Sri Lanka 1 2 3

Sweden 3 1 4

Switzerland 17 18 35

Tanzania 1 1

Thailand 1 1

Trinidad and Tobago 1 1

Tunisia 4 2 6

Turkey 3 3

Uganda 2 2

United Kingdom 26 42 68

United States 1 23 5 29

Uruguay 3 4 7

Venezuela 4 4

Zambia 1 1

Zimbabwe 1 1 2

Total 5 363 292 660

Note: Senior Management includes the Director-General and Deputies Director-General

Annual Average Base Salary

Senior Management 273,637 CHF

Professional staff 162,232 CHF

Support staff 97,994 CHF

Source: WTO Secretariat as of December 31, 2009 
 
 

 

WTO ACCESSION APPLICATIONS AND STATUS (as of 01-01-10)1

Applicant Status of Multilateral and Bilateral Work 

Afghanistan*

(2004)

Submitted initial documentation to activate the accession negotiations in April 2009. WTO 

Members have submitted questions and comments on that documentation. First Working Party 

(WP) meeting likely after Afghanistan provides written responses. The United States is providing 

technical assistance through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 

including drafting documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution building. 

Algeria 

(1987)

Most recent WP meeting held in January 2008 to review draft WP report and status of market 

access negotiations. No WP meetings held in 2009.

Andorra 

(1997)

Inactive. Last WP meeting held on October 13, 1999, reviewed legislative implementation 

schedule and goods and services market access offers. 

Azerbaijan 

(1997)

Seventh WP meeting held in July 2009 to review additional documentation (including a factual 

summary), discuss domestic market support and subsidies in agriculture, and conduct market 

access negotiations for goods and services based on April 2009 offers. The United States 

continues to provide technical assistance (through USAID) in the form of a resident advisor for 

drafting documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution building in the areas of customs, 

licensing, intellectual property, standards and sanitary measures, to facilitate the accession process. 

Bahamas

(2001)

Submitted initial documentation to activate the accession negotiations in April 2009. WTO 

Members have submitted questions and comments on that documentation. First WP meeting 

likely after written responses are provided 

Belarus 

(1993)

Inactive. Chairman’s Consultations in June 2009 confirmed willingness of WP Members to 

resume Working Party deliberations, if Belarus can demonstrate that it intends to implement WTO 

provisions. Belarus also will need to provided updated documentation on its trade regime as well 

as substantially improved offers on goods and services market access. Next meeting not 

scheduled. 

Bhutan *

(1999)

Fourth WP held in January 2008 to review additional documentation and conduct market access 

negotiations for goods and services. Bhutan did not seek further work on its WTO accession in 

2009, and no further meetings are scheduled at this time. 

Bosnia and 

Herzegovina

(1999)

Seventh WP meeting held July 2009 to review elements of a draft WP report, revised data on 

agricultural supports and a revised legislative action plan, and to conduct market access 

negotiations based on April 2009 offers. Next meeting planned for February 2010. The United 

States is providing technical assistance through the Commercial Law Development Program 

(CLDP) in drafting documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution building. 

 

* Designates “least developed country” applicant. 

1 “Applicant” column includes date the Working Party was formed. Pre-1995 dates indicate that the original WP was formed under the 

GATT 1947, but was reformed as a WTO Working Party in 1995. 
 

Comoros *

(2007)

Application accepted at October 2007 General Council meeting, but Comorros has not yet 

submitted initial documentation to activate the accession negotiations.

Equatorial 

Guinea

(2008)

Application accepted at February 2008 General Council meeting; has not yet submitted initial 

documentation to activate the accession negotiations.

Ethiopia*

(2003)

Ethiopia circulated its responses to questions and comments from Members submitted at the first 

WP meeting and related documentation in April and June 2009. A second WP meeting could be 

scheduled in 2010 once a new WP Chair is designated. No market access offers have been 

circulated to date. The United States provides technical assistance through USAID in the form of 

a resident advisor for drafting documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution building in 

the areas of customs, licensing, intellectual property, standards and sanitary measures.

Iraq

(2004)

I

raq’s last WP meeting was held in April 2008. A third meeting will be scheduled following Iraq’s 

submission of initial market access offers for goods and services and written responses to 

questions and comments from the previous meeting. The United States provides technical 

assistance in the form of a team of resident advisors funded through USAID, to help with drafting 

documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution building. 

Iran

(2005)

Submitted initial documentation to activate the accession negotiations in November 2009. WTO 

Members are developing questions and comments and consulting on the designation of a WP 

Chair. 

Kazakhstan 

(1996)

Kazakhstan suspended bilateral and multilateral work on its WTO accession in June 2009 after 

announcing the establishment of a customs union with Russia and Belarus, including the adoption 

of a common external tariff (CXT) on January 1, 2010 and a common Customs Code in July 2010. 

Informal consultations with WTO Members in June and October 2009 did not fully clarify the 

implications of these changes for Kazakhstan’s WTO accession process. The next WP meeting 

will be scheduled following Kazakhstan’s submission of responses to questions from the previous 

WP meeting in July 2008, and additional information on the changes being made to their trade 

regimes and to tariff and other commitments made in the WTO accession process to date. Next 

WP will also review the revised draft WP report text and legislative implementation in legislative 

action plan. Bilateral negotiations were advanced but now must be reopened to address 

Kazakhstan’s stated intent to substantially change the tariff commitments already made in order to 

align its prospective WTO commitments with those of Russia and Belarus after accession. 

Revised services market access offer also is expected prior to next Working Party, reflecting 

progress achieved in bilaterals with United States and other WTO Members during 2008. Through 

USAID, the United States provides technical assistance in the form of an advisor resident in 

Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, for drafting documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution 

building. Specific assistance has been provided in the areas of customs, licensing, intellectual 

property, standards and sanitary measures.
 

 

Lao PDR *

(1998)

Fifth WP meeting held in July 2009 to continue review of the trade regime (including a revised 

factual summary). Next WP meeting possible in first half of 2010. The United States is providing 

technical assistance to help train Lao officials.

Lebanon

(1999)

Sixth and Seventh WP meetings held in February and September 2009 respectively. Next WP 

meeting to be scheduled based on progress on legislative implementation and provision of 

improved offers on goods and services market access. Through USAID, the United States 

continues to provide technical assistance in the form of long terms advisors and short term specific 

assistance. Assistance provided in drafting documentation, training, legal drafting, and institution 

building, with focus on customs procedures, intellectual property rights protection, services, and 

standards. 

Liberia*

(2007)

Application accepted at December 2007 General Council meeting. No documentation or market 

access offers circulated to date.

Libya

(2004)

Application accepted at July 2004 General Council meeting. No documentation or market access 

offers circulated to date.

Montenegro 

(2005)

Multilateral negotiations are substantially completed; Montenegro is still negotiating bilateral 

market access commitments with one WP Member (Ukraine). A final WP meeting to adopt the 

report and the consolidated goods and services market access Schedules will occur only after 

bilateral negotiations are closed and schedules are verified.

Russia 

(1993)

Russia suspended bilateral and multilateral work on its WTO accession in June 2009 after 

announcing the establishment of a customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus, including the 

adoption of a common external tariff (CXT) on January 1, 2010 and a common Customs Code in 

July 2010. Informal consultations with WTO Members in June and October 2009 did not fully 

clarify the implications of these changes for Russia’s WTO accession process. Multilateral work 

may resume in 2010 after submission by Russia and its customs union partners of information on 

the changes being made to their trade regimes and to tariff and other commitments made in the 

WTO accession process to date. Draft WP report text circulated in 2008 will need revision based 

on new information. Russia’s bilateral market access negotiations with WTO Members largely 

completed (Georgia outstanding), but further tariff negotiations likely as Russia intends to 

establish harmonized goods market access commitments in WTO with Kazakhstan and Belarus. 

Negotiations continue on level of agricultural supports and subsidies as well as other issues. 

Russia’s legislative implementation ongoing. 
 

Samoa * 

(1998)

Informal WP meeting held in May and October 2009 to review revised draft WP report and 

continue negotiations on revised market access offers on goods and services. Substantial progress 

recorded in both areas, and completion of these negotiations is contemplated in 2010 after Samoa 

provides revised goods and services offers reflecting progress achieved in negotiations in 2009, 

and revised action plans on implementation of WTO Agreements and the removal of certain 

WTO-inconsistent nontariff barriers. 

Sao Tome 

and Principe 

* (2005)

Application accepted at May 2005 General Council meeting; has not yet submitted initial 

documentation to activate the accession negotiations.

Serbia

(2005)

Seventh WP meeting held in July 2009 to review revised draft WP report and other new 

documentation and to assess status of legislative implementation. Next WP meeting likely during 

first quarter of 2010, depending upon legislative activity (including amendments to problematic 

Serbian “GMO law”). Bilateral negotiations on goods and services are continuing.

Seychelles 

(1995)

Submitted revised documentation in May 2009 to resume negotiations for accession. WTO 

Members have submitted questions and comments. Next WP meeting likely after the Seychelles 

provides written responses and revised goods and services offers.

Sudan*

(1995)

Inactive. Second WP meeting held March 10, 2004. Revised market access offers for goods and 

services were tabled in October 2006. 

Syria Application for accession to the WTO first circulated in October 2001. No Council review to date.

Tajikistan 

(2001)

Fourth WP meeting held in September 2009 to continue review of the trade regime (including a 

revised factual summary) and the status of legislative implementation of WTO provisions. 

Bilateral market access negotiations were held as well. Scheduling of next meeting may occur in 

mid-to-late 2010 after Tajikistan responds to WP Members’ comments and questions and provides 

revised market access offers on goods and services. WTO Secretariat intends to circulate elements 

of a draft WP report prior to the next meeting. The United States provides technical assistance 

through USAID in the form of an advisor resident in Bishkek, for drafting documentation, 

training, legal drafting, and institution building.

Uzbekistan 

(1995)

Third WP meeting held in October 2005 to review additional documentation and initial market 

access offers. No further meetings are scheduled at this time.
 

 

Vanuatu *

(1995)

Consulted in 2009 with WTO Secretariat and with selected WTO delegations to renegotiate the 

accession package approved by the Working Party but not adopted by the Ministerial Conference 

in 2001 and to update the draft WP report. Revised accession package may be circulated for WTO 

Member review during 2010. 

Yemen *

(2000)

Sixth WP meeting held in July 2009 to continue to review the trade regime and conduct bilateral 

negotiations on revised market access offers on goods and services. Bilateral engagement 

continued via digital video conferences throughout 2009. Next WP meeting scheduled for January 

26, 2010. The United States has provided help with orientation and the development of 

documentation through USAID and the United States - Middle East Partnership Initiative.
 

 

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/DSB/44/Rev.7 

23 November 2009 

(09-5814) 

INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS 

Revision

To assist in the selection of panelists, the DSU provides in Article 8.4 that the Secretariat shall 

maintain an indicative list of governmental and non-governmental individuals. 

In accordance with the proposals for the administration of the indicative list of panelists approved by 

the DSB on 31 May 1995, the list should be completely updated every two years. For practical 

purposes, the proposals for the administration of the indicative list approved by the DSB on 

31 May 1995 are reproduced as an Annex to this document. 

The attached is a revised consolidated list of governmental and non-governmental panelists.1

 The list 

is based on the previous indicative list issued on 26 June 2009 (WT/DSB/44/Rev.6). It includes 

additional names approved by the DSB at its meeting on 20 July 2009.2

 Any future modifications or 

additions to this list submitted by Members will be circulated in periodic revisions of this list. 

Please note that the format for the Summary Curriculum Vitae form in the annex to the attachment has 

been slightly modified to include a new item on language capabilities. In addition, a footnote has been 

added to the form requesting Members to transmit the Summary Curricula Vitae electronically to the 

Secretariat and also to provide separately the contact details of the individuals being put forward for 

inclusion on the indicative list. 

 

1

 Curricula Vitae containing more detailed information are available to WTO Members upon request from the 

Secretariat (Council & TNC Division). 

2

 See document: WT/DSB/W/408. 
 

 

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WT/DSB/W/417 

11 December 2009 

(09-6461) 

Dispute Settlement Body 

21 December 2009 

PROPOSED NOMINATIONS FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF 

GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL PANELISTS 

 The following additional names have been proposed for inclusion on the Indicative 

List of Governmental and Non-Governmental Panelists in accordance with Article 8.4 of the 

DSU.

1

_______________ 

NOMINATING 

MEMBER 

NAME SECTORAL 

EXPERIENCE 

AUSTRALIA GOSPER, Mr. Bruce 

HOLMES, Ms. Patricia Ann 

MULGREW, Mr. Michael 

Trade in Goods 

Trade in Goods 

Trade in Goods 

__________ 

Note: These nominations were approved by the DSB on December 21, 200 

.

 

1

 The Curricula Vitae containing more detailed information are available on request from the WTO Secretariat 

(Council and TNC Division). 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

ARGENTINA BARDONESCHI, Mr. Rodrigo C. Trade in Goods 

CHIARADIA, Mr. Alfredo Vicente Trade in Goods DUMONT, Mr. Alberto Juan Trade in Goods LUNAZZI, Mr. Gustavo Nerio Trade in Goods MAKUC, Mr. Adrían Jorge Trade in Services MÉNDEZ, Mr. Gustavo Héctor Trade in Goods MORELLI, Mr. Esteban Andrés Trade in Goods NEGRO, Ms. Sandra Cecilia Trade in Goods NISCOVOLOS, Mr. Luis Pablo Trade in Goods and Services PAN, Ms. Julia Adriana Gabriela Trade in Goods PÉREZ GABILONDO, Mr. José Luis Trade in Goods; TRIPS PETRI, Mr. Gerardo Luis Trade in Goods PIÑEIRO, Mr. Martín Enrique Trade in Goods RAITERI, Ms. María Valeria Trade in Goods REGÚNAGA, Mr. Marcelo Trade in Goods RIABOI, Mr. Jorge B. Trade in Goods STANCANELLI, Mr. Néstor Edgardo Trade in Goods 

AUSTRALIA CHESTER, Mr. Douglas Owen TRIPS  CHURCHE, Mr. Milton Trade in Goods  DEADY, Mr. Stephen Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 FARBENBLOOM, Mr. Simon Trade in Goods and Services AUSTRALIA (cont'd) GALLAGHER, Mr. Peter Trade in Goods; TRIPS  JENNINGS, Mr. Mark Trade in Goods; TRIPS  McCARTHY, Ms. Caroline TRIPS  MITCHELL, Mr. Andrew Trade in Goods and Services MORETTA, Mr. Remo Trade in Goods and Services  MYLER, Mr. Paul Trade in Goods and Services  O'CONNOR, Mr. Paul Richard Trade in Goods  RAPER, Ms. Cathy Trade in Goods and Services  SIN FAR LEE, Ms. Stephanie Trade in Goods  SPENCER, Mr. David Trade in Goods  VOON, Ms. Tania Su Lien Trade in Goods and Services WITBREUK, Ms. Trudy Trade in Goods and Services  YOUNG, Ms. Elizabeth Trade in Goods BOLIVIA ZELADA CASTEDO, Mr. Alberto Trade in Goods BRAZIL ABREU, Mr. Marcelo de Paiva Trade in Goods and Services 

BARRAL, Mr. Welber Oliveira Trade in Goods BARTHEL-ROSA, Mr. Paulo Trade in Goods BASSO, Ms. Maristela Trade in Goods; TRIPS LEMME, Ms. Marta Calmon Trade in Goods MAGALHÃES, Mr. José Carlos Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

MARCONINI, Mr. Mario Trade in Services MOURA ROCHA, Mr. Bolívar Trade in Services 

BRAZIL (cont'd) NAIDIN, Ms. Leane Cornet Trade in Goods 

RIOS, Ms. Sandra Polônia Trade in Goods THORSTENSEN, Ms. Vera Helena Trade in Goods 

CANADA BERNIER, Mr. Ivan Trade in Goods and Services  BRADFORD, Mr. Meriel V. M. Trade in Goods and Services  BROWN, Ms. Catherine Anne Trade in Goods and Services CLARK, Mr. Peter James Trade in Goods and Services  CLOSE, Ms. Patricia Margaret Trade in Goods  DE MESTRAL, Mr. Armand Trade in Goods  EYTON, Mr. Anthony T. Trade in Goods  GHERSON, Mr. Randolph Trade in Goods  GOODWIN, Ms. Kirsten M. Trade in Goods and Services HALLIDAY, Mr. Anthony L. Trade in Goods and Services  HERMAN, Mr. Lawrence L. Trade in Goods  HINES, Mr. Wilfred Roy Trade in Goods  MACMILLAN, Ms. Kathleen E. Trade in Goods 

MCRAE, Mr. Donald Malcolm Trade in Goods 

 OSTRY, Ms. Sylvia Trade in Goods  RITCHIE, Mr. Gordon Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 THOMAS, Mr. Christopher Trade in Goods and Services 

WINHAM, Mr. Gilbert R. Trade in Goods 

CHILE BIGGS, Mr. Gonzalo Trade in Goods  ERNST, Mr. Felipe Trade in Goods and Services 

ESPINOZA, Mr. Alvaro Trade in Goods 

 MATUS, Mr. Mario Trade in Goods  MLADINIC, Mr. Carlos Trade in Goods  PEÑA, Ms. Gloria Trade in Goods 

SAEZ, Mr. Sebastián Trade in Goods and Services 

 SATELER, Mr. Ricardo TRIPS  TIRONI, Mr. Ernesto Trade in Goods CHINA DONG, Mr. Shizhong Trade in Goods and Services LI, Mr. Enheng Trade in Goods and Services  ZENG, Mr. Lingliang Trade in Goods  ZHANG, Mr. Yuqing Trade in Goods and Services ZHU, Ms. Lanye Trade in Services; TRIPS COLOMBIA BARBERI, Mr. Fernando Trade in Goods  CÁRDENAS, Mr. Manuel Jose Trade in Goods and Services IBARRA PARDO, Mr. Gabriel Trade in Goods  JARAMILLO, Mr. Felipe Trade in Goods and Services 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 LEAL ANGARITA, Mr. Manuel Trade in Goods and Services  OROZCO GOMEZ, Ms. Angela María Trade in Goods  OROZCO, Ms. Claudia Trade in Goods  TANGARIFE, Mr. Marcel Trade in Goods; TRIPS CÔTE D'IVOIRE GOSSET, Ms. Marie Trade in Goods; TRIPS CROATIA ŠAR

ČEVI

Ć, Mr. Petar Trade in Goods and Services 

CUBA CABALLERO RODRÍGUEZ, Mr. Eumelio Trade in Goods and Services 

HERNÁNDEZ, Mr. Arnaldo Trade in Goods and Services MARZIOTA DELGADO, Mr. Ernesto Antonio Trade in Goods and Services 

ECUADOR PINOARGOTE CEVALLOS, Mr. Alfredo Trade in Goods EGYPT ABOUL-ENEIN, Mr. Mohamed Ibrahim Mostafa Trade in Goods and Services  FAWZY, Mr. Abdelrahman Trade in Goods and Services  HATEM, Mr. Samy Affify Trade in Goods  RIAD, Mr. Tarek Fouad Trade in Goods and Services SHAHIN, Ms. Magda Trade in Goods and Services SHARAF ELDIN, Mr. Ahmed Trade in Goods; TRIPS  ZAHRAN, Mr. Mohamed Mounir Trade in Goods and ServicesEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AUSTRIA BENEDEK, Mr. Wolfgang Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 MARTINS, Mr. Rudolf Trade in Goods  REITERER, Mr. Michael G. K. Trade in Goods and Services WAAS, Mr. Gerhard Trade in Goods and Services WEISS, Mr. Johann Friedrich Trade in Goods and Services ZEHETNER, Mr. Franz Trade in Goods  BELGIUM DASSESSE, Mr. Marc Paul Albert Trade in Goods and Services  DIDIER, Mr. Pierre Trade in Goods  VAN DER BORGHT, Mr. Kim Trade in Goods  VANDER SCHUEREN, Ms. Paulette Trade in Goods and Services  WOUTERS, Mr. Jan Trade in Goods and Services  ZONNEKEYN, Mr. Geert A. Trade in Goods  CZECH REP. JUNG, Mr. Zdeněk Trade in Goods and Services 

PALE

ĈKA, Mr. Peter Trade in Goods and Services 

 PRAVDA, Mr. Miroslav Trade in Goods  ŠRON

ĔK, Mr. Ivan TRIPS 

 DENMARK BOESGAARD, Mr. Hendrik Trade in Goods 

CARL, Mr. Mogens Peter Trade in Goods and ServicesKUIJPER, Mr. Pieter Jan Trade in Goods and ServicesWHITE, Mr. Eric Trade in Goods and Services

 FINLAND BERGHOLM, Mr. Kari Axel Trade in Goods  JULIN, Mr. Jorma Kari Johannes Trade in Goods and Services 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 LUOTONEN, Mr. Yrjö Kim David Trade in Goods 

PULLINEN, Mr. Matti Johannes Trade in Goods 

 RANTANEN, Mr. Paavo Trade in Goods  FRANCE ARMAIGNAC, Ms. Marie-Christine Trade in Services; TRIPS  BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES, Mrs. Laurence Trade in Goods and Services  COMBALDIEU, Mr. Jean Claude TRIPS  DELLEUR, Mr. Philippe Trade in Services  JENNY, Mr. Frédéric Yves Trade in Goods and Services METZGER, Mr. Jean-Marie Trade in Goods  STERN, Ms. Brigitte Trade in Goods  VAN PHI, Mr. Phan Trade in Goods and Services  GERMANY DELBRÜCK, Mr. Kilian Trade in Goods 

HERRMANN, Mr. Christoph Walter Trade in Goods; TRIPS HILF, Mr. Meinhard Trade in Goods and Services MENG, Mr. Werner Trade in Goods, TRIPS OPPERMANN, Mr. Thomas Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

 PETERSMANN, Mr. Ernst-Ulrich Trade in Goods and Services TANGERMANN, Mr. Stefan Trade in Goods  GREECE MYROGIANNIS, Mr. George Trade in Goods  STANGOS, Mr. Petros N. Trade in Goods and Services HUNGARY FURULYÁS, Mr. Ferenc Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

HALGAND DANI, Ms. Virág Trade in Goods and Services

LAKATOS, Mr. Andrés Trade in Goods and Services 

 IRELAND LONG, Mr. Ronald Trade in Goods; TRIPS  MATTHEWS, Mr. Alan Henry Trade in Goods  MOCKLER, Mr. Thomas F. Trade in Goods  ITALY GERBINO, Mr. Mario Trade in Goods  GIARDINA, Mr. Andrea Trade in Goods and Services  MENSI, Mr. Maurizio Trade in Goods  SCHIRATTI, Mr. Giampiero Trade in Goods  NETHERLANDS BLOKKER, Mr. Nicolaas Max Trade in Goods 

BRINKHORST, Mr. Laurens Jan Trade in Goods and Services BRONCKERS, Mr. Marco Trade in Goods and ServicesENGERING, Mr. Franciscus Aloysius Trade in Goods and Services 

 HOEKMAN, Mr. Bernard Marco Trade in Goods and Services POLAND PIETRAS, Mr. Jaroslaw Trade in Services  PORTUGAL CALHEIROS DA GAMA, Mr. José Sérgio TRIPS  ROMANIA BERINDE, Mr. Mihai Trade in Goods 

CAMPEANU, Ms. Victoria Trade in Goods 

FLORINA, Ms. Fratita Carmen Trade in Goods 

RADU, Mr. Vasile Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 SPAIN CASTILLO URRUTIA, Mr. Juan Antonio Trade in Goods 

DÍAZ MIER, Mr. Miguel Ángel Trade in Services 

 LÓPEZ DE SILANES MARTÍNEZ Mr. Juan Pablo Trade in Goods and Services  PÉREZ SANCHEZ, Mr. José Luis Trade in Goods and Services RIGO, Mr. Andrés Trade in Services  SWEDEN AHNLID, Mr. Anders Gustav Ragnar Trade in Goods and Services ANDERSSON, Mr. Thomas Martin Trade in Goods  ANELL, Mr. Lars Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

BÄVERBRANT, Mr. Johan C. Trade in Goods and ServicesBECKER, Ms. Gunnela Marianne Trade in Goods and ServicesDAHLIN, Ms. Karin Elisabeth Trade in Goods and Services

 FALLENIUS, Mr. Christer H. Trade in Goods  HÅKANSSON, Mr. Gösta PER-Olov Trade in Services 

HOLGERSSON, Mr. Jörgen Trade in Goods and Services KLEEN, Mr. Peter Trade in Goods 

 LINDSTRÖM, Mr. Jan Mikael Trade in Goods 

MANHUSEN, Mr. Christer Trade in Goods and Services 

OLOFSGÅRD, Ms. Eva-Kajsa Buzaglo Trade in Goods and Services

 RAHLÉN, Ms. Christina Trade in Goods and Services

RISINGGÅRD, Mr. Axel Börje Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 SWEDEN (cont'd) RODIN, Mr. Arne Trade in Goods; TRIPS  STÅLBERG, Mr. Lars Trade in Goods  TAURIAINEN, Mr. Teppo Markus Trade in Goods and Services UNITED KINGDOM ARKELL, Mr. Julian Trade in Services  BETHLEHEM, Mr. Daniel Trade in Goods and Services CROFT, Mr. Roy Henry Francis Trade in Services  HINDLEY, Mr. Brian Vernon Trade in Goods and Services  JOHNSON, Mr. Michael David Clarke Trade in Goods 

MUIR, Mr. Tom Trade in Goods and Services

 PLENDER, Mr. Richard Trade in Goods  QURESHI, Mr. Asif Hasan Trade in Goods 

ROBERTS, Mr. Christopher William Trade in Goods and Services 

 ROBERTS, Mr. David F. Trade in Goods 

SAROOSHI, Mr. Dan Trade in Services TOULMIN, Mr. John Kelvin Trade in Services 

GHANA OPOKU AWUKU, Mr. Emmanuel Trade in Goods and ServicesHONG KONG, CHINA CARTLAND, Mr. Michael David Trade in Goods and Services 

CHEUNG, Mr. Peter Kam Fai TRIPS 

 LEUNG, Ms. Ada Ka Lai TRIPS  LITTLE, Mr. David Trade in Goods and Services  MILLER, Mr. Tony J.A. Trade in Goods and Services 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

ICELAND BJÖRGVINSSON, Mr. David Thór Trade in Goods and Services  JÓHANNSSON, Mr. Einar M. Trade in Goods 

SANDHOLT, Mr. Brynjolfur Trade in Goods 

INDIA AGARWAL, Mr. Vinod Kumar Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

AGRAWAL, Mr. Rameshwar Pal Trade in Goods and ServicesBHATTACHARYA, Mr. G. C. Trade in Goods CHANDRASEKHAR, Mr. Kesava Menon Trade in Goods and Services

 CHAUDHURI, Mr. Sumanta Trade in Goods and Services DAS, Mr. Bhagirath Lal Trade in Goods 

DASGUPTA, Mr. Jayant Trade in Goods 

 GOPALAN, Mr. Rajarangamani Trade in Goods  GOYAL, Mr. Arun Trade in Services  KAUSHIK, Mr. Atul Trade in Goods; TRIPS  KUMAR, Mr. Mohan Trade in Goods and Services  MOHANTY, Mr. Prasant Kumar Trade in Goods 

MUKERJI, Mr. Asoke Kumar Trade in Goods and Services

 NARAYANAN, Mr. Srinivasan Trade in Goods; TRIPS  PRABHU, Mr. Pandurang Palimar Trade in Goods; TRIPS  PRASAD, Ms. Anjali Trade in Goods and Services

RAI, Mr. Pushpendra TRIPS 

 RAMAKRISHNAN, Mr. N. Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

INDIA (cont'd) RAO, Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Trade in Goods 

REGE, Mr. Narayan Vinod Trade in Goods 

 SAJJANHAR, Mr. Ashok Trade in Goods 

SHARMA, Mr. Lalit Trade in Goods and ServicesVENUGOPAL, Mr. Krishnan Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

 ZUTSHI, Mr. B. K. Trade in Goods and ServicesISRAEL ALTUVIA, Mr. Magen Trade in Goods  GABAY, Mr. Mayer TRIPS  HARAN, Mr. Ephraim F. Trade in Services  HOROVITZ, Mr. Dan Trade in Goods and Services  POLINER, Mr. Howard Zvi TRIPS  SEMADAR, Mr. Moshe Trade in Goods  SHATON, Mr. Michael Marcel Trade in Goods and Services  TALBAR, Mr. Michael Adin Trade in Goods  WEILER, Mr. Joseph H.H. Trade in Goods JAPAN ARAKI, Mr. Ichiro Trade in Goods and Services

ASAKAI, Mr. Kazuo Trade in Goods 

 ASAKURA, Mr. Hironori Trade in Goods  HASEBE, Mr. Masamichi Trade in Goods and Services  ISHIGURO, Mr. Kazunori Trade in Goods and Services IWASAWA, Mr. Yuji Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 KANDA, Mr. Hideki Trade in Services  KEMMOCHI, Mr. Nobuaki Trade in Goods and Services  KOTERA, Mr. Akira Trade in Goods and Services  OHARA, Mr. Yoshio Trade in Goods; TRIPS  SANO, Mr. Tadakatsu Trade in Goods 

SHIMIZU, Mr. Akio Trade in Goods 

 SUZUKI, Mr. Masabumi Trade in Goods; TRIPS  TSURUOKA, Mr. Koji Trade in Services 

YAMANE, Ms. Hiroko Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

KOREA AHN, Mr. Dukgeun Trade in Goods 

AHN, Mr. Ho-Young Trade in Goods AHN, Mr. Myung-soo Trade in Goods CHANG, Mr. Seung Wha Trade in Goods CHO, Mr. Tae-Yul Trade in Goods 

 CHOI, Mr. Byung-il Trade in Services  CHOI, Mr. Won-Mog Trade in Goods and Services KIM, Mr. Jong Bum Trade in Goods 

LEE, Mr. Jaemin Trade in Goods PARK, Mr. Nohyoung Trade in Goods 

 WOO, Mr. Jooha Trade in Goods and Services LIECHTENSTEIN ZIEGLER, Mr. Andreas R. Trade in Services; TRIPS 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

MADAGASCAR ANDRIANARIVONY, Mr. Minoarison Trade in Goods and ServicesMAURITIUS BEEKARRY, Mr. Navin Trade in Goods and Services  BHUGLAH, Mr. Achad Trade in Goods and Services MEXICO AGUILAR ÁLVAREZ, Mr. Guillermo Trade in Goods and Services

AMIGO CASTAÑEDA, Mr. Jorge TRIPS 

BOLÍVAR, Ms. Gisela Trade in Goods and Services DE LA PEÑA, Mr. Alejandro Trade in Goods and Services

DELGADO, Mr. Sergio Trade in Goods and Services DE MATEO VENTURINI, Mr. Fernando Trade in Services JASSO TORRES, Mr. Humberto Trade in Goods ORTEGA, Mr. Armando Trade in Goods and ServicesPEREZCANO DÍAZ, Mr. Hugo Manuel Trade in Goods and ServicesPOBLANO, Mr. José F. Trade in Services; TRIPS REYES, Ms. Luz Elena Trade in Goods 

TRASLOSHEROS HERNÁNDEZ, Mr. José Gerardo Trade in Goods and Services

ZABLUDOVSKY KUPER, Mr. Jaime Trade in Goods and Services

NEPAL PANDEY, Mr. Posh Raj Trade in Goods and Services 

SUBEDI, Mr. Surya P. Trade in Goods and Services

NEW ZEALAND ARMSTRONG, Mr. Wade Mowatt Valentine Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

CARSON, Mr. Christopher Barr Trade in Goods 

 FALCONER, Mr. Crawford Dunlop Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 FALCONER, Mr. William John Trade in Goods and Services GROSER, Mr. Tim Trade in Goods  HAMILTON, Mr. Peter William Trade in Goods  HARVEY, Mr. Martin Wilfred Trade in Goods  HIGGIE, Ms. Dell Clark Trade in Goods  KENNEDY, Mr. Peter Douglas Trade in Goods  MACEY, Mr. Adrian Trade in Goods; TRIPS  MCPHAIL, Mr. Alexander Hugh Trade in Goods  NOTTAGE, Mr. Richard Frederick Trade in Goods  SLADE, Ms. Michelle Trade in Goods and Services TRAINOR, Mr. Mark Julian Trade in Goods; TRIPS  WALKER, Mr. David John Trade in Goods and Services  WOODFIELD, Mr. Edward A Trade in Goods NIGER TANKOANO, Mr. Amadou Trade in Goods and ServicesNIGERIA NNONA, Mr. George C. Trade in Goods and ServicesNORWAY GLENNE, Mr. Eirik Trade in Goods and Services 

HOLTEN, Ms. Inger Trade in Goods; TRIPS LILLERUD, Mr. Kjell Trade in Goods and Services 

 LUNDBY, Mr. Ole Trade in Goods and Services

 SELAND, Mr. Helge A. Trade in Goods and Services

 TØNSETH, Mr. Didrik Trade in Goods and Services
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

PAKISTAN ARIF, Mr. Muhammad Ikram Trade in Goods 

BASHIR, Mr. Shahid Trade in Goods HAMID ALI, Mr. Muhammad Trade in Goods; TRIPS HUSAIN, Mr. Ishrat Trade in Services KHAN, Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed Trade in Goods; TRIPS MALIK, Mr. Riaz Ahmad Trade in Goods 

PANAMA FERRER, Mr. Alejandro Trade in Goods and Services 

FRANCIS LANUZA, Ms. Yavel Mireya Trade in Goods and Services GONZALEZ, Mr. Carlos Ernesto Trade in Goods and Services HARRIS ROTKIN, Mr. Norman Trade in Goods and Services SALAZAR FONG, Ms. Diana Alejandrina Trade in Goods 

SHEFFER MONTES, Mr. Leroy Jhon Trade in Goods and Services 

PERU BELAÚNDE G., Mr. Victor Andres TRIPS 

DIEZ LIZARDO, Mr. Juan Trade in Goods 

LEÓN-THORNE, Mr. Raúl Trade in Goods and Services 

QATAR MAKKI, Mr. Fadi Trade in Goods and Services SRI LANKA JAYASEKERA, Mr. Douglas Trade in Goods; TRIPS SWITZERLAND ADDOR, Mr. Felix TRIPS  BREINING, Ms. Christine Trade in Services 

CHAMBOVEY, Mr. Didier Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 COTTIER, Mr. Thomas Trade in Goods and Services

GETAZ, Mr. Henri Alexandre Trade in Services 

 HÄBERLI, Mr. Christian Trade in Goods 

INEICHEN-FLEISCH, Ms. Marie-Gabrielle Trade in Goods and Services 

 KRAFFT, Mr. Mathias-Charles Trade in Goods 

LEGLER, Mr. Thomas TRIPS MEYER, Mr. Matthias Trade in Goods and ServicesPANNATIER, Mr. Serge Nicolas Trade in Goods TSCHÄENI, Mr. Hanspeter Trade in Goods WASESCHA, Mr. Luzius Trade in Goods and Services

 WEBER, Mr. Rolf H. Trade in Services THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 

LO, Mr. Chang-Fa YANG, Ms. Guang-Hwa 

Trade in Goods and Services Trade in Goods and Services 

TURKEY GÜRAKAN, Ms. Tulû Trade in Goods 

KAÇAR, Mr. Bayram Trade in Goods YENAL, Mr. Aytaç Trade in Goods 

UNITED STATES BIRENBAUM, Mr. David E. Trade in Goods 

BROWN-WEISS, Ms. Edith Trade in Goods and Services CONNELLY, Mr. Warren Trade in Goods GANTZ, Mr. David A. Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

 GORDON, Mr. Michael Wallace Trade in Goods 

HODGSON, Ms. Mélida Trade in Goods and Services KASSINGER, Mr. Theodore W. Trade in Goods and Services KHO, Mr. Stephen Trade in Goods and ServicesKIRK, Mr. Michael K. TRIPS LAYTON, Mr. Duane Trade in Goods 

 LICHTENSTEIN, Ms. Cynthia Crawford Trade in Services  McGINNIS, Mr. John Oldham Trade in Goods; TRIPS 

PARTAN, Mr. Daniel G. Trade in Goods POWELL, Mr. Stephen J. Trade in Goods REYNA, Mr. Jimmie V. Trade in Goods and Services 

 SANDSTROM, Mr. Mark R. Trade in Goods and Services  THOMPSON, Mr. George W. Trade in Goods  TROSSEVIN, Ms. Marguerite Trade in Goods  VERRILL, Jr. Mr. Charles Owen Trade in Goods URUGUAY AMORÍN, Mr. Carlos Trade in Goods; TRIPS  CAYRÚS, Mr. Hugo Trade in Goods and Services  EHLERS, Mr. William Trade in Goods  ROSSELLI, Mr. Elbio Trade in Goods  VANERIO, Mr. Gustavo Trade in Goods and Services  WHITELAW, Mr. James A. Trade in Goods 
MEMBER NAME SECTORAL EXPERIENC

VENEZUELA ESCOBAR, Mr. José Benjamín Trade in Services  MARQUEZ, Mr. Guillermo Trade in Services  ROJAS PENSO, Mr. Juan Francisco Trade in Goods and Services 
 

ANNEX 

Administration of the Indicative List

1. To assist in the selection of panelists, the DSU provides in Article 8.4 that the Secretariat shall 

maintain an indicative list of qualified governmental and non-governmental individuals. Accordingly, the 

Chairman of the DSB proposed at the 10 February meeting that WTO Members review the roster of nongovernmental panelists established on 30 November 1984 (BISD 31S/9) (hereinafter referred to as the 

“1984 GATT Roster”) and submit nominations for the indicative list by mid-June 1995. On 14 March, 

The United States delegation submitted an informal paper discussing, amongst other issues, what 

information should accompany the nomination of individuals, and how names might be removed from the 

list. The DSB further discussed the matter in informal consultations on 15 and 24 March, and at the DSB 

meeting on 29 March. This note puts forward some proposals for the administration of the indicative list, 

based on the previous discussions in the DSB. 

General DSU requirements

2. The DSU requires that the indicative list initially include “the roster of governmental and 

non-governmental panelists established on 30 November 1984 (BISD 31S/9) and other rosters and 

indicative lists established under any of the covered agreements, and shall retain names of persons 

on those rosters and indicative lists at the time of entry into force of the WTO Agreement” (DSU 

8.4). Additions to the indicative list are to be made by Members who may “periodically suggest 

names of governmental and non-governmental individuals for inclusion on the indicative list, 

providing relevant information on their knowledge of international trade and of the sectors or 

subject matter of the covered agreements.” The names “shall be added to the list upon approval by 

the DSB” (DSU 8.4). 

Submission of information

3. As a minimum, the information to be submitted regarding each nomination should clearly 

reflect the requirements of the DSU. These provide that the list “shall indicate specific areas of 

experience or expertise of the individuals in the sectors or subject matter of the covered 

agreements” (DSU 8.4). The DSU also requires that panelists be “well-qualified governmental 

and/or non-governmental individuals, including persons who have served on or presented a case to 

a panel, served as a representative of a Member or of a contracting party to GATT 1947 or as a 

representative to the Council or Committee of any covered agreement or its predecessor 

agreement, or in the Secretariat, taught or published on international trade law or policy, or served 

as a senior trade policy official of a Member” (DSU 8.1). 

4. The basic information required for the indicative list could best be collected by use of a 

standardized form. Such a form, which could be called a Summary Curriculum Vitae, would be 

filled out by all nominees to ensure that relevant information is obtained. This would also permit 

information on the indicative list to be stored in an electronic database, making the list easily 

updateable and readily available to Members and the Secretariat. As well as supplying a 

completed Summary Curriculum Vitae form, persons proposed for inclusion on the indicative list 
 

could also, if they wished, supply a full Curriculum Vitae. This would not, however, be entered 

into the electronic part of the database. 

Updating of indicative list

5. The DSU does not specifically provide for the regular updating of the indicative list. In 

order to maintain the credibility of the list, it should however be completely updated every two 

years. Within the first month of each two-year period, Members would forward updated Curricula 

Vitae of persons appearing on the indicative list. At any time, Members would be free to modify 

the indicative list by proposing new names for inclusion, or specifically requesting removal of 

names of persons proposed by the Member who were no longer in a position to serve, or by 

updating the summary Curriculum Vitae. 

6. Names on the 1984 GATT Roster that are not specifically resubmitted, together with up-todate summary Curriculum Vitae, by a Member before 31 July 1995 would not appear after that 

date on the indicative list. 

Other rosters

7. The Decision on Certain Dispute Settlement Procedures for the GATS (S/L/2 of 4 April 

1995), adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 1 March 1995, provides for a special roster 

of panelists with sectoral expertise. It states that "panels for disputes regarding sectoral matters 

shall have the necessary expertise relevant to the specific services sectors which the dispute 

concerns." It directs the Secretariat to maintain the roster and "develop procedures for its 

administration in consultation with the Chairman of the Council." A working document (S/C/W/1 

of 15 February 1995) noted by the Council for Trade in Services states that “the roster to be 

established under the GATS pursuant to this Decision would form part of the indicative list 

referred to in the DSU.” The specialized roster of panelists under the GATS should therefore be 

integrated into the indicative list, taking care that the latter provides for a mention of any service 

sectoral expertise of persons on the list. 

8 A suggested format for the Summary Curriculum Vitae form for the purposes of 

maintaining the Indicative List is attached as an Annex. 
 

Summary Curriculum Vitae 

for Persons Proposed for the Indicative List1

1. Name: full name 

2. Sectoral Experience 

List here any particular sectors of expertise: 

(e.g. technical barriers, dumping, financial services, 

intellectual property, etc.) 

3. Nationality(ies) all citizenships 

4. Nominating Member: the nominating Member 

5. Date of birth: full date of birth 

6. Current occupations: year beginning, employer, title, 

responsibilities 

7. Post-secondary education year, degree, name of institution 

8. Professional qualifications year, title 

9. Trade-related experience in Geneva in 

the WTO/GATT system 

a. Served as a panelist 

b. Presented a case to a panel 

c. Served as a representative of a contracting party or 

member to a WTO or GATT body, or as an officer 

thereof 

d. Worked for the WTO or GATT Secretariat 

year, dispute name, role as 

chairperson/member 

year, dispute name, representing which party 

year, body, role 

year, title, activity 

10. Other trade-related experience 

a. Government trade work 

b. Private sector trade work 

year, employer, activity 

year, employer, activity 

11. Teaching and publications 

a. Teaching in trade law and policy 

b. Publications in trade law and policy 

year, institution, course title 

year, title, name of periodical/book, 

author/editor (if book) 

12. Language capabilities 

a. English 

b. French 

c. Spanish 

d. Other language(s) 

ability to work as a panelist in WTO-official 

languages and any other language capability 

 

1

 Members putting forward an individual for inclusion on the indicative list are requested to provide full contact 

details for this individual separately. The Summary Curriculum Vitae and the contact details should be sent 

electronically to the Secretariat. 
 
 

MEMBERSHIP OF THE WTO APPELLATE BODY 

From January 1, 2009, to February 10, 2009, the membership of the WTO Appellate Body was as follows: 

Professor Luiz Olavo Baptista (Brazil), Ms. Lilia R. Bautista (Philippines), 

Ms. Jennifer Hillman (United States), Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan), 

Professor Giorgio Sacerdoti (Italy), Mr. David Unterhalter (South Africa), 

Ms. Yuejiao Zhang (China) 

From February 11, 2009, to June 30, 2009, the membership of the WTO Appellate Body was as follows: 

Ms. Lilia R. Bautista (Philippines), Ms. Jennifer Hillman (United States), 

Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan), Professor Giorgio Sacerdoti (Italy), 

Mr. David Unterhalter (South Africa), Ms. Yuejiao Zhang (China) 

From July 1, 2009, to December 11, 2009, the membership of the WTO Appellate Body was as follows: 

Ms. Lilia R. Bautista (Philippines), Ms. Jennifer Hillman (United States), 

Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan), Mr. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Mexico), 

Professor Giorgio Sacerdoti (Italy), Mr. David Unterhalter (South Africa), 

Ms. Yuejiao Zhang (China) 

From December 12, 2009, to December 31, 2009, the membership of the WTO Appellate Body was as 

follows: 

Ms. Lilia R. Bautista (Philippines), Ms. Jennifer Hillman (United States), 

Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan), Mr. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Mexico), 

Mr. David Unterhalter (South Africa), Mr. Peter Van den Bossche (Belgium), 

Ms. Yuejiao Zhang (China) 

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES:

Luiz Olavo Baptista 

 

Born in Brazil in 1938, Luiz Olavo Baptista is currently Professor of International Trade Law at the 

University of São Paulo Law School. 

He has been a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague since 1996, and of the 

International Chambre of Commerce (ICC) Institute for International Trade Practices and of its 

Commission on Trade and Investment Policy, since 1999. In addition, he has been one of the arbitrators 

designated under Mercosur's Protocol of Brasilia since 1993. 

Professor Baptista is also senior partner at the L.O. Baptista Law Firm, in São Paulo, Brazil, where he 

concentrates his practice on corporate law, arbitration and international litigation. He has been practicing 

law for almost 40 years advising governments, international organizations and large corporations in Brazil 

and in other jurisdictions. Professor Baptista has been an arbitrator at the United Nations Compensation 

Commission (E4A Panel) in several private commercial disputes and State-investor proceedings, as well 

as in disputes under Mercosur's Protocol of Brasilia. In addition, he has participated as a legal advisor in 
 

diverse projects sponsored by the World Bank, the United Nations Conference on Trade and 

Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC), and the 

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 

He obtained his law degree from the Catholic University of São Paulo, pursued post-graduate studies at 

Columbia University Law School and The Hague Academy of International Law, and received a Ph.D in 

International Law from the University of Paris II. He was Visiting Professor at the University of 

Michigan (Ann Arbor) in 1978-1979, and at the University of Paris I and the University of Paris X 

between 1996 and 2000. Professor Baptista has published extensively on various issues in Brazil and 

abroad. 

Lilia R. Bautista 

Born in the Philippines on 16 August 1935, Ms. Lilia R Bautista is currently Consultant to the Philippine 

Judicial Academy which is the training school for Philippine justices, judges and lawyers. She is also a 

member of several corporate boards. 

Ms. Bautista was the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines from 

2000 to 2004. Between 1999 and 2000, she served as Senior Undersecretary and Special Trade 

Negotiator at the Department of Trade and Industry in Manila. From December 1992 to June 1999, Ms. 

Bautista was the Philippine Permanent Representative in Geneva to the United Nations, WTO, WHO, 

ILO and other international organizations. During her assignment in Geneva, she chaired several bodies, 

including the WTO Council for Trade in Services. Her long career in the Philippine Government also 

included posts as Legal Officer in the Office of the President, Chief Legal Officer of the Board of 

Investments, and acting Trade Minister from February to June 1992. 

Ms. Bautista earned her Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Masters Degree in Business Administration from 

the University of the Philippines. She was conferred the degree of Master of Laws by the University of 

Michigan as a Dewitt Fellow. 

Jennifer Hillman 

Born in the United States on 29 January 1957, Ms. Jennifer Hillman serves as a Fellow and Adjunct 

Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law. 

Her work focuses on the WTO dispute settlement system, the WTO agreements related to trade remedies, 

and the WTO jurisprudence related to trade remedies. 

From 1998 to 2007, Ms. Hillman served as a member of the US International Trade Commission — an 

independent, quasi-judicial agency responsible for making determinations in anti-dumping and 

countervailing proceedings, and conducting safeguard investigations. 

From 1995 to 1997, Ms. Hillman served as the chief legal counsel to the USTR, overseeing the legal 

developments necessary to complete the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement 

From 1993 to 1995, Ms. Hillman was responsible for negotiating all US bilateral textile agreements prior 

to the adoption of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. 
 

Ms. Hillman has a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Education from Duke University, North Carolina, and 

a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Shotaro Oshima 

Born in Japan on 20 September 1943, Mr. Shotaro Oshima is a law graduate from the University of 

Tokyo, with almost 40 years experience as a diplomat in Japan’s Foreign Service, most recently as 

Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. 

From 2002 to 2005, Mr Oshima was Japan’s Permanent Representative to the WTO, during which time 

he served as Chair of the General Council and the Dispute Settlement Body. 

Prior to his time in Geneva, Mr Oshima served as Deputy Foreign Minister responsible for economic 

matters and was designated as Prime Minister Koizumi’s Personal Representative to the G8 Summit in 

Canada in June 2002. In the same year he served as the Prime Minister’s Personal Representative to the 

UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa. 

Ricardo Ramírez Hernández 

Born in Mexico on 17 October 1968, Ricardo Ramírez is Counsel and Head of the International Trade 

Practice for Latin America at the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke in Mexico City. His practice has 

focused on issues related to NAFTA and trade across Latin America, including international trade dispute 

resolution. He holds the Chair of International Trade Law at the Mexican National University (UNAM) in 

Mexico City. 

Prior to practicing with a law firm, Mr. Ramírez was Deputy General Counsel for Trade Negotiations of 

the Ministry of Economy in Mexico for more than a decade. In this capacity, he provided advice on trade 

and competition policy matters related to 11 Free Trade Agreements signed by Mexico, as well as with 

respect to multilateral agreements, including those related to the WTO, the Free Trade Area of the 

Americas (FTAA), and the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI). 

Mr. Ramírez also represented Mexico in complex international trade litigation and investment arbitration 

proceedings. He acted as lead counsel to the Mexican government in several WTO disputes. He has also 

served on NAFTA panels. 

Mr. Ramírez holds an LL.M. degree in International Business Law from the Washington College of Law 

of the American University, and a law degree from the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. 

Giorgio Sacerdoti 

Born on 2 March 1943, Giorgio Sacerdoti is Professor of International Law and European Law at Bocconi 

University, Milan, Italy, since 1986. 

Professor Sacerdoti has held various posts in the public sector including Vice-Chairman of the 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery in 

International Business Transactions until 2001 where he was one of the drafters of the “Anticorruption 

Convention of 1997”. He has acted as consultant to the Council of Europe, the United Nations 
 

Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Bank in matters related to foreign 

investments, trade, bribery, development and good governance. In the private sector, he has often served 

as arbitrator in international commercial disputes and at the International Centre for Settlement of 

Investment Disputes. 

Professor Sacerdoti has published extensively on international trade law, investments, international 

contracts and arbitration. 

After graduating from the University of Milan with a law degree summa cum laude in 1965, Professor 

Sacerdoti gained a Master in Comparative Law from Columbia University Law School as a Fulbright 

Fellow in 1967. He was admitted to the Milan bar in 1969 and to the Supreme Court of Italy in 1979. He 

is a Member of the Committee on International Trade Law of the International Law Association. 

Peter Van den Bossche 

Born in Belgium on 31 March 1959, Peter Van den Bossche is currently Professor of International 

Economic Law and Head of the Department of International and European Law at Maastricht University, 

the Netherlands. He also serves as the Academic Director of Maastricht University's Institute for 

Globalization and International Regulation and is on the faculty of the World Trade Institute in Berne, 

and the Institute of European Studies of Macau. 

Mr. Van den Bossche has extensive experience in academia and has published extensively in the field of 

international economic law. The second edition of his textbook The Law and Policy of the World Trade 

Organization was published by Cambridge University Press in 2008. Mr. Van den Bossche is a Member 

of the Board of Editors of the Journal of International Economic Law. He has also acted as a consultant to 

many developing countries. 

From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Van den Bossche was Counsellor and subsequently Acting Director of the WTO 

Appellate Body Secretariat. From 1990 to 1992, he served as a Référendaire of Advocate General W. van 

Gerven at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. 

Mr. Van den Bossche holds a Doctorate in Law from the European University Institute, Florence, an 

LL.M. from the University of Michigan Law School, and a Licentiaat in de Rechten magna cum laude 

from the University of Antwerp. 

David Unterhalter 

Born in South Africa on 18 November 1958, David Unterhalter holds degrees from Trinity College, 

Cambridge, the University of the Witwatersrand, and University College Oxford. David Unterhalter has 

been a Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa since 1998, and from 2000 

– 2006, he was the Director of the Mandela Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, an institute 

focusing upon global law. 

Mr. Unterhalter is a member of the Johannesburg Bar; as a practicing advocate he has appeared in a large 

number of cases in the fields of trade law, competition law, constitutional law, and commercial law. His 

experience includes representing different parties in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. He has 

acted as an advisor to the South African Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, he has served on 

a number of WTO dispute settlement panels. 
 

Mr. Unterhalter has published widely in the fields of public law and competition law. 

Yuejiao Zhang

Born in China on 25 October 1944, Ms. Yuejiao Zhang is Professor of Law at Shantou University in 

China. She is an Arbitrator on China’s International Trade and Economic Arbitration Commission and 

practices law as a private attorney. Ms. Zhang also serves as Vice President of China's International 

Economic Law Society. 

Between 1998 and 2004, Ms. Zhang held various positions at the Asian Development Bank. Prior to this, 

Ms. Zhang held several positions in government and academia in China, including as Director-General of 

Law and Treaties at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (1984-1997) where she 

was involved in drafting many of China’s trade laws, such as the Foreign Trade Law, the Anti-Dumping 

Regulation and the Anti-Subsidy Regulation. 

From 1987 to 1996, Ms. Zhang was one of China’s chief negotiators on intellectual property and was 

involved in the preparation of China’s patent law, trade mark law, and copyright law. She also served as 

the chief legal counsel for China’s GATT resumption and WTO accession. Between 1982 and 1985, Ms. 

Zhang worked as legal counsel at the World Bank. 

Ms. Zhang was a Member of UNIDROIT from 1987-1999. She has a Bachelor of Arts from China High 

Education College and a Master of Laws from Georgetown University Law Center. 

Source: WTO Secretariat 
 

Where to Find More Information on the WTO 

Information about the WTO and trends in international trade is available to the public at the following websites: 

The USTR home page: http://www.ustr.gov

The WTO home page: http://www .wto.org

U.S. submissions are available electronically on the WTO website using Documents Online, which can retrieve an 

electronic copy by the “document symbol”. Electronic copies of U.S. submissions are also available at the USTR website. 

Examples of information available on the WTO home page include: 

Descriptions of the Structure and Operations of the WTO, such as:

 WTO Organizational Chart 

 Biographic backgrounds 

WTO News, such as:

 Membership 

 General Council activities 

 Status of dispute settlement cases 

 Press Releases on Appointments to WTO Bodies, 

Appellate Body Reports and Panel Reports, and 

others 

 Schedules of future WTO meetings 

 Summaries of Trade Policy Review Mechanism 

reports on individual Members’ trade practices 

Resources including Official Documents, such as:

 Notifications required by the Uruguay Round 

Agreements 

 Working Procedures for Appellate Review 

 Special Studies on key WTO issues 

 On-line document database where one can find 

and download official documents 

 Legal Texts of the W TO agreements 

 WTO Annual Reports 

Community/Fora, such as:

 Media and NGOs  General public news and chat rooms 

Trade Topics, such as:

 Briefing Papers on WTO activities in individual 

sectors, including goods, services, intellectual 

property, other topics 

 Disputes and Dispute Reports 
 

 

WTO publications may be ordered directly from the following sources: 

1. The World Trade Organization 

Publications Services 

Centre William Rappard 

Rue de Lausanne 154 

CH - 1211 Geneva 21 

Switzerland 

Tel: (41-22) 739 52 08 / 739 53 08 

Fax: (41-22) 739 57 92 

email: publications@wto.org

2. Berman Associates 

4611-F Assembly Drive 

Lanham, MD 20706-4391 

Tel: 301/459-7666 

Toll Free: 800/274-4888 

fax: 301/459-0056 

Toll Free: 800/865-3450 

e-mail: query@bernan.com

e-mail: order@bernan.com
 

ANNEX III
 

 

ANNEX III: U.S. Trade-Related Agreements and Declarations 

I. Agreements That Have Entered Into Force

Following is a list of trade agreements entered into by the United States since 1984 and 

monitored by the Office of the United States Trade Representative for compliance. 

Multilateral and Plurilateral Agreements

► Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) (signed April 

15, 1994), the Ministerial Decisions and Declarations adopted by the Uruguay Round 

Trade Negotiations Committee on December 15, 1993, and subsequent WTO agreements. 

a. Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods 

i. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 

ii. Agreement on Agriculture 

iii. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

iv. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 

v. Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures 

vi. Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on 

Tariffs and Trade 1994 

vii. Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on 

Tariffs and Trade 1994 

viii. Agreement on Preshipment Inspection 

ix. Agreement on Rules of Origin 

x. Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 

xi. Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

xii. Agreement on Safeguards 

b. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 

i. Fourth Protocol to the GATS (Basic Telecommunications Services) 

(February 5, 1998) 

 ii. Fifth Protocol to the GATS (Financial Services) (March 1, 1999) 

c. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 

 

d. Plurilateral Trade Agreements 

i. Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (April 12, 1979; amended in 1986) 

ii. Agreement on Government Procurement (April 15, 1994) 

► WTO Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (Information 

Technology Agreement (ITA)) (Match 26, 1997) 
 

► International Tropical Timber Agreement (successor to the 1983 International Tropical 

 Timber Agreement, January 1, 1997) 

► International Coffee Agreement (successor to the 1994 International Coffee Agreement; 

 entered into force provisionally October 1, 2001 and definitively May 17, 2005; U.S. 

 Instrument of accession deposited February 3, 2005) 

► North American Free Trade Agreement (January 1, 1994) 

 i. Agreement with Mexico and Canada to a first round of NAFTA Accelerated 

Tariff Elimination (March 26, 1997) 

 ii. Agreement with Mexico and Canada to a second round of NAFTA Accelerated 

Tariff Elimination (July 27, 1998) 

iii. Agreement with Mexico to a third round of NAFTA Accelerated Tariff 

 Elimination (November 29, 2000) 

iv. Agreement with Mexico to a fourth round of NAFTA Accelerated Tariff 

 Elimination (December 5, 2001) 

 v. Agreement with Mexico and Canada on adjustments to the NAFTA Rules of 

Origin (November 27, 2002) 

 vi. Agreement with Mexico and Canada on adjustments to the NAFTA Rules of 

Origin (October 8, 2004) 

 vii. Agreement with Mexico and Canada on adjustments to the NAFTA Rules of 

 Origin (March 8, 2006) 

 viii. Agreement with Mexico and Canada on adjustments to the NAFTA Rules of 

 Origin (April 11, 2008) 

 ix. Agreement with Mexico and Canada on adjustments to the NAFTA Rules of 

 Origin (April 9, 2009) 

► North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (January 1, 1994) 

► North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (January 1, 1994) 

► Statement Concerning Semiconductors by the European Commission and the 

Governments of the United States, Japan, and Korea (June 10, 1999) 

► Agreement on Mutual Acceptance of Oenological Practices (December 18, 2001) 

► The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (Costa 

Rica (January 1, 2009); the Dominican Republic (March 1, 2007); El Salvador (March 1, 
 

 

2006); Guatemala (July 1, 2006); Honduras (April 1, 2006); and Nicaragua (April 1, 

2006) 

i. Amendment to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement relating to Article 22.5 (March 29, 2006) 

ii. Amendment to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement relating to Textiles Matters (August 15, 2008) 

iii. Amendment to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement relating to Guatemala Tariffs on Beer (February 4, 2009) 

► Agreement Establishing a Secretariat for Environmental Matters Under the Dominican 

 Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (August 25, 2006) 

► Agreement on Duty-Free Treatment of Multi-Chips Integrated Circuits (MCPs) (January 

 18, 2006) (Korea, Taiwan, Japan, European Union and the United States) 

► Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labeling (January 23, 2007) (Australia, 

 Argentina, Canada, Chile, New Zealand and the United States) 

Bilateral Agreements

Albania

► Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (May 14, 1992) 

► Bilateral Investment Treaty (January 4, 1998) 

Argentina

► Private Courier Mail Agreement (May 25, 1989) 

► Bilateral Investment Treaty (October 20, 1994) 

Armenia 

► Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (April 7, 1992) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (March 29, 1996)

Australia

< Settlement on Leather Products Trade (November 25, 1996) 

< Understanding on Automotive Leather Subsidies (June 20, 2000) 
 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (October 19, 2002) 

< United States -Australia Free Trade Agreement (January 1, 2005)

Azerbaijan

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (April 21, 1995) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (August 2, 2001) 

Bahrain

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 30, 2001) 

< United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (August 1, 2006) 

Bangladesh

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (July 25, 1989) 

Belarus

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (February 16, 1993) 

Bolivia

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (June 6, 2001) 

Brazil

< Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Brazil and the Government 

of the United States Concerning Trade Measures in the Automotive Sector (March 16, 1998) 

Bulgaria

< Agreement on Trade Relations (November 22, 1991) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (June 2, 1994; amended January 1, 2007) 

< Agreement Concerning Intellectual Property Rights (July 6, 1994) 
 

 

Cambodia

< Agreement between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Cambodia on 

Trade Relations and Intellectual Property Rights Protection (October 8, 1996) 

Cameroon

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (April 6, 1989) 

Canada

< Agreement on Salmon & Herring (May 11, 1993) 

< Agreement Regarding Tires (May 25, 1993) 

< Memorandum of Understanding on Provincial Beer Marketing Practices (August 5, 1993) 

 

< Agreement on Ultra-High Temperature Milk (September 1993) 

< Agreement on Beer Market Access in Quebec and British Columbia Beer Antidumping 

Cases (April 4, 1994) 

< Agreement on Salmon & Herring (April 1994) 

< Agreement on Barley Tariff-Rate Quota (September 8, 1997) 

< Record of Understanding on Agriculture (December 1998) 

< Agreement on Magazines (Periodicals) (May 1999) 

< Agreement on Implementation of the WTO Decision on Canada’s Dairy Support 

Programs (December 1999) 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (January 17, 2002) 

< Agreement to Implement Phase II of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (January 28, 2003) 

< United States-Canada Understanding on Implementation of the Decision of the WTO 

General Council of August 30, 2003, on “Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha 

Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health” as Interpreted by the 

Accompanying Statement of the Chairman of the General Council of the Same Date (July 16, 

2004) 
 

< Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of the United States of America 

and the Government of Canada (SLA 2006) (October 12, 2006) 

< Technical Arrangement between the United States and Canada concerning Trade in 

Potatoes (November 1, 2007) 

Chile 

< United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (January 1, 2004) 

< United States-Chile Agreement on Accelerated Tariff Elimination (November 14, 2008) 

< United States-Chile Agreement on Trade in Table Grapes (November 21, 2008) 

< United States-Chile Agreement on Beef Grade Labeling (March 26, 2009) 

China

< Accord on Industrial and Technological Cooperation (January 12, 1984) 

< Memorandum of Understanding on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 

(January 17, 1992) 

< Memorandum of Understanding on Prohibiting Import and Export in Prison Labor 

Products (June 18, 1992) 

< Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Market Access (October 10, 1992) 

< Agreement on Trade Relations between the United States of America and the People’s 

Republic of China (February 1, 1980) 

< Agreement on Providing Intellectual Property Rights Protection (February 26, 1995) 

< Report on China’s Measures to Enforce Intellectual Property Protections and Other 

Measures (June 17, 1996) 

< Interim Agreement on Market Access for Foreign Financial Information Companies 

(Xinhua) (October 24, 1997) 

< Bilateral Agriculture Agreement (April 10, 1999) 

< Memorandum of Understanding between China and the United States Regarding China’s 

Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits (July 14, 2004) 

< Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of the United States of 
 

 

America and the People’s Republic of China Concerning Trade in Textile and Apparel 

Products (November 8, 2005) 

< Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the People’s 

Republic of China Regarding Certain Measures Granting Refunds, Reductions, or 

Exemptions from Taxes or Other Payments (November 29, 2007) 

< Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the People’s 

Republic of China Regarding Certain Measures Affecting Foreign Suppliers of Financial 

Information Services (November 13, 2008) 

Colombia

< Memorandum of Understanding on Trade in Bananas (January 9, 1996) 

< Exchange of Letters between the United States and Colombia on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade Issues (February 27, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters between United States and Colombia on Beef Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues (August 21, 2006) 

Congo, Democratic Republic of the (formerly Zaire)

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (July 28, 1989) 

Congo, Republic of the 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (August 13, 1994) 

Costa Rica

< Memorandum of Understanding on Trade in Bananas (January 9, 1996) 

Croatia

< Memorandum of Understanding on Intellectual Property Rights (May 26, 1998) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (June 20, 2001) 

Czech Republic

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (December 19, 1992; amended May 1, 2004) 

Dominican Republic 

< Exchange of Letters on Trade in Textile and Apparel Goods (October 21, 2006) 
 

Ecuador

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection (October 15, 1993) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 11, 1997) 

Egypt 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (June 27, 1992) 

Estonia

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (February 16, 1997; amended May 1, 2004)

European Economic Area – European Free Trade Association (EEA EFTA States -- 

Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) 

< Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the United States of America and the EEA EFTA 

States (March 1, 2006). 

< Agreement between the United States of America and the EEA EFTA States on the Mutual 

Recognition of Certificates of Conformity for Marine Equipment (March 1, 2006) 

European Union 

< Wine Accord (July 1983)

< Agreement for the Conclusion of Negotiations between the United States and the 

European Community under GATT Article XXIV:6 (January 30, 1987) 

< Agreement on Exports of Pasta with Settlement, Annex and Related Letter (September 

15, 1987) 

< Agreement on Canned Fruit (updated) (April 14, 1992) 

< Agreement on Meat Inspection Standards (November 13, 1992) 

< Corn Gluten Feed Exchange of Letters (December 4 and 8, 1992) 

< Malt-Barley Sprouts Exchange of Letters (December 4 and 8, 1992) 

< Oilseeds Agreement (December 4 and 8, 1992) 

< Agreement on Recognition of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whisky as Distinctive 

U.S. Products (March 28, 1994) 

< Memorandum of Understanding on Government Procurement (April 15, 1994) 
 

 

< Letter on Financial Services Confirming Assurances to Provide Full MFN and National 

Treatment (July 14, 1995) 

< Agreement on EU Grains Margin of Preference (signed July 22, 1996; retroactively 

effective December 30, 1995) 

< Exchange of Letters Concerning Implementation of the Marrakesh Agreement 

Establishing the World Trade Organization and Related Matters (June 26, 1996) 

< Exchange of Letters between the United States of America and the European Community 

on a Settlement for Cereals and Rice, and Accompanying Exchange of Letters on Rice Prices 

(July 22, 1996) 

< Agreement for the Conclusion of Negotiations between the United States of America and 

the European Community under GATT Article XXIV:6, and Accompanying Exchange of 

Letters (signed July 22, 1996; retroactively effective December 30, 1995) 

< Tariff Initiative on Distilled Spirits (February 28, 1997) 

< Agreement on Global Electronic Commerce (December 9, 1997) 

< Agreed Minute on Humane Trapping Standards (December 18, 1997) 

< Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the United States of America and the 

European Community (December 1, 1998) 

< Agreement between the United States and the European Community on Sanitary 

Measures to Protect Public and Animal Health in Trade in Live Animals and Animal 

Products (July 20, 1999) 

< Understanding on Bananas (April 11, 2001) 

< Agreement on the Mutual Acceptance of Oenological Practices (December 18, 2001) 

< Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community on the 

Mutual Recognition of Certificates of Conformity for Marine Equipment (July 1, 2004) 

< Agreement in the Form of an Exchange of Letters between the United States and the 

European Community Relating to the Method of Calculation of Applied Duties for Husked 

Rice (June 30, 2005; retroactively effective March 1, 2005) 

< Agreement between the United States and European Community on Trade in Wine 

(March 10, 2006) 
 

< Agreement for the Conclusion of Negotiations between the United States of America and 

the European Community under GATT Article XXIV:6, and Accompanying Exchange of 

Letters (March 22, 2006) 

< Joint Letter from the United States and the European Communities on implementation of 

GATS Article XXI procedures relating to the accession to the European Communities of the 

Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, 

Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Finland, and Sweden (August 7, 2006) 

< Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and European Commission 

Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain GrowthPromoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied to Certain Products of the European 

Communities (May 13, 2009). 

Georgia

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (August 13, 1993) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (August 17, 1997) 

Grenada

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (March 3, 1989) 

Haiti 

< Exchange of Letters on Trade in Textile and Apparel Goods (September 18, 2008) 

Hong Kong 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I and Phase II of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of 

Telecommunications Equipment (April 4, 2005) 

< Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Hong 

Kong Special Administrative Region Concerning Cooperation in Trade in Textile and 

Apparel Goods (August 1, 2005) 

Honduras

< Memorandum of Understanding on Worker Rights (November 15, 1995) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (July 11, 2001) 
 

 

Hungary

< Agreement on Trade Relations (July 7, 1978) 

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection (September 29, 1993) 

India

< Agreement Regarding Indian Import Policy for Motion Pictures (February 5, 1992) 

< Reduction of Tariffs on In-Shell Almonds (May 27, 1992) 

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection (March 1993) 

< Agreement on Import Restrictions (December 28, 1999) 

< Agreement on Textile Tariff Bindings (September 15, 2000) 

Indonesia

< Conditions for Market Access for Films and Videos into Indonesia (April 19, 1992) 

< Memorandum of Understanding with Indonesia Concerning Cooperation in Trade in 

Textile and Apparel Goods (September 26, 2006) 

Israel

< United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement (August 19, 1985) 

< United States-Israel Agreement Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural 

Products (July 27, 2004; extended by Exchange of Letters December 10, 2008)

< United States-Israel Agreement Concerning Certain Aspects of Trade in Agricultural 

Products (July 27, 2004; extended by Exchange of Letters (December 6, 2009).

Jamaica

< Agreement on Intellectual Property (February 1994) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (March 7, 1997) 

Japan

< Market-Oriented Sector-Selective (MOSS) Agreement on Medical Equipment and 

Pharmaceuticals (January 9, 1986) 
 

< Exchange of Letters Regarding Tobacco (October 6, 1986) 

< Foreign Lawyers Agreement (February 27, 1987) 

< Science and Technology Agreement (June 20, 1988; extended June 16, 1993) 

< Procedures to Introduce Supercomputers (June 15, 1990) 

< Measures Relating to Wood Products (June 15, 1990) 

< Policies and Procedures Regarding Satellite Research and Development/Procurement 

(June 15, 1990) 

< Policies and Procedures Regarding International Value-Added Network Services and 

Network Channel Terminating Equipment (July 31, 1990) 

< Joint Announcement on Amorphous Metals (September 21, 1990) 

< Measures Further to 1990 Policies and Procedures regarding International Value-Added 

Network Services (April 27, 1991) 

< Measures Regarding International Value-Added Network Services Investigation 

Mechanisms (June 25, 1991) 

< United States-Japan Major Projects Arrangement (July 31, 1991; originally negotiated 

1988) 

< Measures Related to Japanese Public Sector Procurement of Computer Products and 

Services (January 22, 1992) 

< United States-Japan Framework for a New Economic Partnership (July 10, 1993) 

< Exchange of Letters Regarding Apples (September 13, 1993) 

< United States-Japan Public Works Agreement (January 18, 1994) 

< Mutual Understanding on Intellectual Property Rights between the Japanese Patent Office 

and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (January 20, 1994) 

< Rice (April 15, 1994) 

< Harmonized Chemical Tariffs (April 15, 1994) 

< Copper (April 15, 1994) 
 

 

< Market Access (April 15, 1994) 

< Actions to be Taken by the Japanese Patent Office and the U.S. Patents and Trademark 

Office pursuant to the January 20, 1994, Mutual Understanding on Intellectual Property 

Rights (August 16, 1994) 

< Measures by the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan 

Regarding Insurance (October 11, 1994) 

< Measures on Japanese Public Sector Procurement of Telecommunications Products and 

Services (November 1, 1994) 

< Measures Related to Japanese Public Sector Procurement of Medical Technology 

Products and Services (November 1, 1994) 

< Measures Regarding Financial Services (February 13, 1995) 

< Policies and Measures Regarding Inward Direct Investment and Buyer-Supplier 

Relationships (June 20, 1995) 

< Exchange of Letters on Financial Services (July 26 and 27, 1995) 

< Interim Understanding for the Continuation of Japan-U.S. Insurance Talks (September 

30, 1996) 

< United States-Japan Insurance Agreement (December 24, 1996) 

< Japan’s Recognition of U.S.-Grade marked Lumber (January 13, 1997) 

< Resolution of WTO dispute with Japan on Sound Recordings (January 13, 1997) 

< National Policy Agency Procurement of VHF Radio Communications System (March 31, 

1997) 

< United States-Japan Enhanced Initiative on Deregulation and Competition Policy (June 

19, 1997) 

< United States-Japan Agreement on Distilled Spirits (December 17, 1997) 

< First Joint Status Report on Deregulation and Competition Policy (May 29, 1998) 

< United States-Japan Joint Report on Investment (April 28, 1999) 

< Second Joint Status Report on Deregulation and Competition Policy (May 3, 1999) 

< United States-Japan Agreement on NTT Procurement Procedures (July 1, 1999) 
 

< Third Joint Status Report on Deregulation and Competition Policy (July 19, 2000) 

< Fourth Joint Status Report on Deregulation and Competition Policy (June 30, 2001) 

< United States-Japan Economic Partnership for Growth (June 30, 2001) 

< First Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (June 25, 2002) 

< Second Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition 

Policy Initiative (May 23, 2003) 

< Third Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (June 8, 2004) 

< Fourth Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (November 2, 2005) 

< Fifth Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (June 29, 2006) 

< Sixth Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (June 6, 2007) 

< Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Results of Conformity Assessment Procedures between the 

United States of America and Japan (U.S.-Japan Telecom MRA) (January 1, 2008) 

< Seventh Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (July 5, 2008) 

< Eighth Report to the Leaders on the U.S.-Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy 

Initiative (July 6, 2009) 

< Memorandum Between the Relevant Authorities of the United States and the Ministry of Health, 

Labour and Welfare of Japan Concerning Enforcement of Japan’s Pesticide Maximum Residue 

Levels (July 28, 2009) 

Jordan

< Agreement between the United States and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the 

Establishment of a Free Trade Area (December 17, 2001) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (June 12, 2003) 
 

 

Kazakhstan

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (February 18, 1993) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (January 12, 1994) 

Korea

< Record of Understanding on Intellectual Property Rights (August 28, 1986) 

< Agreement on Access of U.S. Firms to Korea's Insurance Markets (August 28, 1986) 

< Record of Understanding Concerning Market Access for Cigarettes (May 27, 1988; 

amended October 16, 1989) 

< Agreement Concerning the Korean Capital Market Promotion Law (September 1, 1988) 

< Agreement on the Importation and Distribution of Foreign Motion Pictures (December 

30, 1988) 

< Agreement on Market Access for Wine and Wine Products (January 18, 1989) 

< Investment Agreement (May 19, 1989) 

< Agreement on Liberalization of Agricultural Imports (May 25, 1989) 

< Record of Understanding on Telecommunications (January 23, 1990) 

< Record of Understanding on Telecommunications (February 15, 1990) 

< Exchange of Letters Regarding the 1986 Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: Product 

Pipeline Protection (February 22, 1990) 

< Record of Understanding on Beef (March 21, 1990) 

< Exchange of Letters on Beef (April 26 and 27, 1990) 

< Agreement on Wine Access (December 19, 1990) 

< Record of Understanding on Telecommunications (February 7, 1991) 

< Agreement on International Value-Added Services (June 20, 1991) 

< Understanding on Telecommunications (February 17, 1992) 

< Exchange of Letters Relating to Korea Telecom Company's Procurement of AT&T 
 

Switches (March 31, 1993) 

< Beef Agreements (June 26, 1993; December 29, 1993) 

< Record of Understanding on Agricultural Market Access in the Uruguay Round 

(December 13, 1993) 

< Exchange of Letters on Telecommunications Issues Relating to Equipment Authorization 

and Korea Telecom Company's Procurement (March 29, 1995) 

< Agreement on Steel (July 14, 1995) 

< Shelf-Life Agreement (July 20, 1995) 

< Revised Cigarette Agreement (August 25, 1995) 

< Memorandum of Understanding to Increase Market Access for Foreign Passenger 

Vehicles in Korea (September 28, 1995) 

< Exchange of Letters on Implementation of the 1992 Telecommunications Agreement 

(April 12, 1996) 

< Korean Commitments on Trade in Telecommunications Goods and Services (July 23, 

1997) 

< Agreement on Korean Motor Vehicle Market (October 20, 1998) 

< Exchange of Letters Regarding Tobacco Sector Related Issues (June 14, 2001) 

< Exchange of Letters on Data Protection (March 12, 2002) 

< Record of Understanding between the Governments of the United States and the Republic 

of Korea Regarding the Extension of Special Treatment for Rice (February 2005) 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (May 10, 2005) 

Kyrgyzstan 

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (May 8, 1992) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (January 12, 1994) 
 

 

Latvia

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (August 21, 1992) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (November 26, 1996; amended May 1, 2004) 

< Agreement on Trade & Intellectual Property Rights Protection (January 20, 1995) 

Lithuania 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (November 22, 2001; amended May 1, 2004)

Laos 

< Bilateral Trade Agreement (February 4, 2005)

Macao 

< Memorandum of Understanding with Macao Concerning Cooperation in Trade in Textile 

and Apparel Goods (August 8, 2005)

Mexico

< Agreement with Mexico on Tire Certification (March 8, 1996) 

< Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Mexico Regarding Areas 

of Food and Agriculture Trade (April 4, 2002) 

< United States-Mexico Exchange of Letters Regarding Mexico’s NAFTA Safeguard on 

Certain Poultry Products (July 24-25, 2003) 

< Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the WTO Decision on Mexico’s 

Telecommunications Services (June 1, 2004) 

< Agreement between the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretaria de Economia of the 

United Mexican State on Trade in Tequila (January 17, 2006) 

< Agreement between the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretaria de Economia of the 

United Mexican State on Trade in Cement (April 3, 2006) 

< United States-Mexico Exchange of Letters Regarding Trade in Sweetener Goods (July 

27, 2006) 

< Bilateral Agreement on Customs Cooperation regarding Claims of Origin Under FTA 

Cumulation Provisions (January 26, 2007) 
 

< Customs Cooperation Agreement with Mexico relating to Textiles Matters (August 15, 

2008) 

Moldova

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (July 2, 1992) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (November 25, 1994) 

Mongolia

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (January 23, 1991) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (January 1, 1997) 

Morocco

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 29, 1991) 

< United States- Morocco Free Trade Agreement (January 1, 2006)

Mozambique 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (March 2, 2005) 

Nicaragua

< Bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Agreement with Nicaragua (December 22, 1997) 

< Exchange of Letters on Trade in Textile and Apparel Goods (March 24, 2006) 

Norway

< Agreement on Procurement of Toll Equipment (April 26, 1990) 

Oman 

< United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement (January 1, 2009) 

Panama

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 30, 1991) 

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (1994) 

< Agreement on Cooperation in Agricultural Trade (December 20, 2006) 
 

 

< Agreement regarding Certain Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical 

Standards Affecting Agricultural Products (December 20, 2006) 

Paraguay

< Memorandum of Understanding on Intellectual Property Rights (March 30, 2004; 

renewed May 2006, April 2008) 

Peru

< United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (February 1, 2009) 

< Memorandum of Understanding on Intellectual Property Rights (May 23, 1997) 

< Exchange of Letters on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to 

Trade Issues (January 5, 2006) 

< Additional Letter Exchange on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical 

Barriers to Trade Issues (April 10, 2006) 

Philippines

< Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (April 6, 1993) 

< Agreement regarding Pork and Poultry Meat (February 13, 1998) 

< Memorandum of Understanding with the Philippines Concerning Cooperation in Trade in 

Textile and Apparel Goods (August 23, 2006) 

Poland

< Business and Economic Relations Treaty (August 6, 1994; amended May 1, 2004) 

Romania

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (April 3, 1992) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (January 15, 1994; amended January 1, 2007) 

Russia

< Trade Agreement Concerning Most Favored Nation and Nondiscriminatory Treatment 

(June 17, 1992) 

< Joint Memorandum of Understanding on Market Access for Aircraft (January 30, 1996) 

< Agreed Minutes regarding exports of poultry products from the United States to Russia 
 

(March 15, March 25, and March 29, 1996) 

< Agreement on Russian Firearms & Ammunition (April 3, 1996; amended 2003) 

< Protocol of the Negotiations between the Experts of Russia and the United States of 

America on the Issue of U.S. Poultry Meat Imports into the Russian Federation (March 31, 

2002) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Russian Federation on Trade in Certain Types of Poultry, Beef and Pork 

(June 15, 2005; amended December 29, 2008) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Russian Federation on Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 

(November 19, 2006) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Russian Federation on Market Access for Beef and Beef By-Products (November 16, 2006) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Russian Federation on Importation of Pork and Pork By-Products into the Russian Federation 

(November 19, 2006) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government 

of the Russian Federation on Inspection of Facilities for Exporting Pork and Poultry to the 

Russian Federation (November 19, 2006) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Russian Federation on Agricultural Biotechnology (November 19, 2006) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Russian Federation on Establishment of Import licensing Procedures for Imports of Goods 

Containing Encryption Technology (November 19, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Russian Federation on Tariff Treatment of Certain Aircraft Imported 

Under Operational Lease (November 19, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters between the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian 

Federation and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Tariff Treatment of Certain 

Combine Harvester-Threshers and Self-Propelled Forage Harvesters (November 19, 2006) 

< Letter on Market Access between the United States and the Russian Federation for Service 

Suppliers in Certain Energy Related Sectors (November 19, 2006) 
 

 

< Letter on Market Access between the United States and the Russian Federation for Certain 

Insurance Firms (November 19, 2006) 

Senegal

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (October 25, 1990) 

Singapore

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection (April 27, 1987) 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I and Phase II of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of 

Telecommunications Equipment (October 8, 2003) 

< United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (January 1, 2004) 

Slovakia 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (December 19, 1992; amended May 1, 2004) 

Sri Lanka

< Agreement on the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 

(September 20, 1991) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 1, 1993) 

Suriname

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (1993) 

Switzerland

< Exchange of Letters on Financial Services (November 9 and 27, 1995) 

Taiwan

< Agreement on Customs Valuation (August 22, 1986) 

< Agreement on Export Performance Requirements (August 1986) 

< Agreement Concerning Beer, Wine, and Cigarettes (1987) 

< Agreement on Turkeys and Turkey Parts (March 16, 1989) 

< Agreement on Beef (June 18, 1990) 
 

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Protection (June 5, 1992) 

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Protection (Trademark) (April 1993) 

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Protection (Copyright) (July 16, 1993) 

< Agreement on Market Access (April 27, 1994) 

< Telecommunications Liberalization by Taiwan (July 19, 1996) 

< Unite States-Taiwan Medical Device Issue: List of Principles (September 30, 1996) 

< Agreement on Market Access (February 20, 1998) 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (March 16, 1999) 

< Understanding on Government Procurement (August 23, 2001) 

< Protocol of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)-Related Measures for the 

Importation of Beef and Beef Products for Human Consumption from the Territory of the 

Authorities Represented by the American Institute in Taiwan (November 2, 2009) 

Tajikistan

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (November 24, 1993) 

Thailand

< Agreement on Cigarette Imports (November 23, 1990) 

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement (December 19, 1991) 

Trinidad and Tobago

< Agreement on Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement (September 26, 1994) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (December 26, 1996) 

Tunisia

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (February 7, 1993) 

Turkey
 

 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 18, 1990) 

< WTO Settlement Concerning Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues (July 14, 1997) 

Turkmenistan

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (October 25, 1993) 

Ukraine

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (June 23, 1992) 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (November 16, 1996) 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Republic of Ukraine on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

(February 21, 2007) 

< Agreement between the U.S. and the Ukraine on Export Duties on Ferrous and NonFerrous Scrap Metal (February 22, 2007) 

Uruguay 

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (November 1, 2006) 

Uzbekistan

< Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations (January 13, 1994) 

Vietnam

< Agreement between the United States and Vietnam on Trade Relations (December 10, 

2001) 

< Copyright Agreement (June 27, 1997) 

< Exchange of Letters on Equivalence of Food Safety Inspection Systems (May 31, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters on Beef (May 31, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters on Biotechnology (May 31, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters on Energy Services (May 31, 2006) 

< Exchange of Letters on Elimination of Prohibited Subsidies to Textile and Garment 

Sector (May 31, 2006) 
 

< Bilateral Agreement on Export Duties on Ferrous and Nonferrous Scrap Metals (May 31, 

2006) 

< Exchange of Letters on Shelf Life (May 31, 2006) 

< Acceptance of U.S. Certificates for Exports of Poultry Meat and Meat Products (May 31, 

2006) 

< Agreement to Implement Phase I of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

Mutual Recognition Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (June 19, 2008) 
 

 

II. Agreements that have been Negotiated 

but have not yet Entered into Force

Following is a list of trade agreements concluded by the United States since 1984 that have not 

yet entered into force. 

Multilateral Agreements

< OECD Agreement on Shipbuilding (December 21, 1994; interested parties evaluating 

implementing legislation) 

< International Tropical Timber Agreement (concluded January 27, 2006; when enters into 

force, it will replace the International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1997) 

< International Coffee Agreement (concluded September 28, 2007; when enters into force it 

will replace the International Coffee Agreement, 2001) 

Bilateral Agreements

Belarus

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (signed January 15, 1994; pending exchange of instruments) 

Colombia 

< United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (signed November 22, 2006; entry 

into force pending); Protocol of Amendment (signed June 28, 2007) 

El Salvador

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (signed March 10, 1999; pending exchange of instruments) 

Estonia

< Trade and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (April 19, 1994; requires approval by 

Estonian legislature) 

Korea 

< United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (signed June 30, 2007; approval pending) 

Lithuania

< Trade and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (April 26, 1994; requires approval by 

Lithuanian legislature) 
 

Nicaragua

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (signed July 1, 1995; pending ratification by United States 

and exchange of instruments of ratification.) 

Panama

< United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (signed June 28, 2007; entry into 

force pending) 

Russia

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (signed June 17, 1992; pending approval by Russian 

Parliament and exchange of instruments of ratification) 

Uzbekistan

< Bilateral Investment Treaty (signed December 16, 1994; pending exchange of 

instruments) 
 

 

III. Other Trade-Related Agreements and Declarations

Following is a list of other trade-related agreements and declarations negotiated by the Office of 

the United States Trade Representative from January 1993 through December 2009. These 

documents provide the framework for negotiations leading to future trade agreements or 

establish mechanisms for structured dialogue in order to develop specific steps and strategies for 

addressing and resolving trade, investment, intellectual property and other issues among the 

signatories. 

Multilateral Agreements and Declarations

< Second Ministerial of the World Trade Organization, Ministerial Declaration on Global 

Electronic Commerce (May 20, 1998) 

< WTO Guidelines for the Negotiation of Mutual Recognition Agreements on Accountancy 

(May 29, 1997) 

< Free Trade Area of the Americas 

< First Summit of the Americas, Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, Miami, 

Florida (December 11, 1994) 

< Trade Ministerial Joint Declaration, Denver, USA (June 30, 1995) 

< Second Ministerial Trade Meeting Joint Declaration, Cartagena, Colombia (March 21, 

1996) 

< Third Trade Ministerial Meeting Joint Declaration, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (May 16, 

1997) 

< Fourth Trade Ministerial Joint Declaration, San Jose, Costa Rica (March 19, 1998) 

< Second Summit of the Americas Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, Santiago, 

Chile (April 19, 1998) 

< Fifth Trade Ministerial Meeting, Declaration of Ministers, Toronto, Canada (November 

4, 1999) 

< Sixth Meeting of Ministers of Trade of the Hemisphere Ministerial Declaration, Buenos 

Aires, Argentina (April 7, 2001) 

< Third Summit of the Americas Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, Quebec 

City, Canada (April 22, 2001) 

< Seventh Meeting of Ministers of Trade of the Hemisphere Ministerial Declaration, Quito, 

Ecuador (November 1, 2002) 

< Eighth Ministerial Meeting, Ministerial Declaration, Miami, USA (November 20, 2003) 
 

< Fourth Summit of the Americas Declaration of Mar Del Plata and Plan of Action, Mar del 

Plata, Argentina (November 5, 2005) 

< Fifth Summit of the Americas Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain, Trinidad and 

Tobago (April 19, 2009) 

< Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 

< Declaration of Common Resolve (November 15, 1994) 

< Declaration for Action (November 19, 1995) 

< Declaration on an APEC Framework for Strengthening Economic Cooperation and 

Development (November 22-23, 1996) 

< Declaration on Connecting the APEC Community (November 25, 1997) 

< Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement for 

Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications Agreement (June 5, 1998) 

< Declaration on Strengthening the Foundations for Growth (November 18, 1998) 

< Declaration: the Auckland Challenge (September 13, 1999) 

< Declaration: Delivering to the Community (November 16, 2000) 

< Declaration: Meeting New Challenges in the New Century (October 21, 2001) 

< Declaration: Leaders Declaration (October 27, 2002) 

< Declaration: Partnership for the Future (October 21, 2003) 

< Organization of American States (OAS), Inter-American Telecommunications Commission 

(CITEL) Mutual Recognition Agreement for Conformity Assessment of Telecommunications 

Equipment (October 29, 1999) 

< United States-Andean Community Trade and Investment Council Agreement (October 30, 

1998) 

< United States-Central American Regional Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (March 

20, 1998) 

< United States-Association of Southeast Asian Nations Trade and Investment Framework 

Arrangement (August 25, 2006) 
 

 

Bilateral Documents and Declarations

Afghanistan 

< United States-Afghanistan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (September 21, 

2004) 

Algeria 

 United States-Algeria Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 13, 2001) 

Angola 

 United States-Angola Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (May 19, 2009)

Argentina

< Bilateral Council on Trade and Investment (February 2002) 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

< United States-Asean Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (August 5, 2006) 

Bolivia 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Republic of Bolivia concerning a United States-Bolivia Council on 

Trade and Investment (May 8, 1990) 

Brazil

< Bilateral Consultative Mechanism (June 25, 2001) 

Brunei Darussalam 

< United States-Brunei Darussalam Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 

(December 16, 2002) 

Cambodia 

< United States-Cambodia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 14, 2006) 

Caribbean Common Market 

< United States-Caribbean Common Market Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 

(1991) 
 

Central Asian Economies 

< United States-Central Asian Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (June 1, 2004) 

China 

< United States-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Agreements (April 21, 

2004) 

< United States-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Agreements (July 11, 

2005) 

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

< United States-Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Trade and Investment 

Framework Agreement (October 2001) 

East African Community 

< United States-East African Community Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 

(July 16, 2008) 

Ecuador 

< Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Republic of Ecuador concerning a United States-Ecuador Council on 

Trade and Investment (July 23, 1990) 

Egypt

< United States-Egypt Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 1, 1999) 

European Union

< United States-EU Transatlantic Economic Partnership (May 18, 1998) 

< United States-EU Joint Action Plan for the Transatlantic Economic Partnership 

(November 9, 1998) 

Georgia

< United States-Georgia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (June 20, 2007) 

Ghana

< United States-Ghana Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (February 26, 1999) 
 

 

Iceland 

< United States-Iceland Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement (January 15, 

2009) 

Indonesia

< United States-Indonesia Understanding on a Trade and Investment Council (July 16, 

1996) 

< Memorandum of Understanding on Combating Illegal Logging and Associated Trade 

(November 16, 2006) 

Iraq 

< United States-Iraq Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 11, 2005) 

Japan

< United States-Japan Joint Statement on the Bilateral Steel Dialogue (September 24, 1999) 

< Exchange of Letters between the United States and Japan—Letters Regarding ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Testing of Unintentional Radiators and Industrial 

Scientific and Medical (ISM) Equipment (February 26, 2007) 

Kuwait 

< United States-Kuwait Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (February 6, 2004) 

Lebanon 

< United States-Lebanon Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (November 30, 

2006) 

Liberia 

< United States-Liberia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (February 15, 2007) 

Malaysia 

< United States-Malaysia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (May 10, 2004) 

Maldives 

< United States-Maldives Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (October 17, 2009) 
 

Mauritius 

< United States-Mauritius Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (September 18, 

2006) 

Mongolia 

< United States-Mongolia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 15, 2004) 

Mozambique 

< United States-Mozambique Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (June 21, 2005) 

New Zealand 

< United States-New Zealand Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (October 2, 

1992) 

Nigeria

< United States-Nigeria Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (February 16, 2000) 

Oman

< United States-Oman Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 7, 2004) 

Pakistan

< United States-Pakistan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (June 25, 2003) 

Paraguay

< Joint Commission on Trade and Investment (September 26, 2003) 

Philippines 

< United States-Philippines Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (1989) 

Qatar 

< United States-Qatar Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (March 19, 2004) 

Rwanda 

< United States-Rwanda Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (June 7, 2006)
 

 

Saudi Arabia 

< United States-Saudi Arabia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 31, 2003)

South Africa

< United States-South Africa Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (February 18, 

1999) 

Southern Africa Customs Union 

< United States-Southern Africa Customs Union Trade, Investment, and Development 

Cooperative Agreement (July 16, 2008) 

Sri Lanka

< United States-Sri Lanka Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (July 25, 2002) 

Switzerland 

< United States-Switzerland Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement (May 

25, 2006) 

Taiwan 

< United States-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (September 19, 

1994) 

Thailand 

< United States-Thailand Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (October 23, 2002) 

Tunisia 

< United States-Tunisia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (October 2, 2002) 

Turkey

< United States-Turkey Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (September 29, 

1999) 

United Arab Emirates (UAE) 

< United States-United Arab Emirates Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 

(March 15, 2004) 
 

Uruguay

< United States-Uruguay Bilateral and Commercial Trade Review (May 20, 1999) 

< Joint Commission on Trade and Investment (January 25, 2007) 

< United States-Uruguay Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (January 25, 2007) 

i. United States-Uruguay Trade and Investment Framework Agreement Protocol 

Concerning Trade and Environment Public Participation (October 2, 2008) 

ii. United States-Uruguay Trade and Investment Framework Agreement Protocol 

Concerning Trade Facilitation (October 2, 2008) 

Vietnam

< United States-Vietnam Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (June 21, 2007) 

West African Economic and Monetary Union

< United States-West African Economic and Monetary Union Trade and Investment 

Framework Agreement (April 24, 2002) 

Yemen 

< United States-Yemen Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (February 6, 2004)