United States

April 15, 2021 — U.S and Gavi co-host event for additional funding for COVAX amid concerns about two workhorse vaccines for COVAX

An important part of global efforts to vaccinate the world has been the work of the World Health Organization, Gavi, CEPI and UNICEF to provide an array of vaccines through early support of research and procurement of large quantities of doses for distribution to countries participating in the program including 92 low- and middle-income economies through COVAX. The COVAX objective for 2021 has been distribution of around two billion doses. While a large amount of money has been raised for vaccine purchases, additional needs in 2021 for COVAX are around $2 billion.

This Thursday, the United States and Gavi will co-host an event seeking additional funding for COVAX. The U.S. State Department press release from April 12 is copied below. See U.S. Department of State, United States to Host Event to Launch the 2021 COVAX Investment Opportunity, April 12, 2021, https://www.state.gov/united-states-to-host-event-to-launch-the-2021-covax-investment-opportunity/.

“On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 8:00 a.m. EDT the United States will co-host the launch of the Investment Opportunity for the Gavi COVAX Advance Market Commitment (COVAX AMC), a virtual convening to galvanize additional resources and commitments to support global COVID-19 vaccination.

“Secretary of State Antony Blinken, USAID Acting Administrator Gloria Steele, and Gavi Board Chair José Manuel Barroso will bring together world leaders, the private sector, civil society, and technical experts to advance and accelerate global access to COVID-19 vaccines. Secretary Antony Blinken will offer opening remarks.

“Equitable access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines across the globe is critical for reducing the tragic loss of life, ending the pandemic, bolstering the U.S. and global economy, and keeping Americans safe at home and abroad. By pooling donor resources, the COVAX AMC provides access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for 92 low-and middle-income economies, supporting the delivery of quality, lifesaving vaccines to those most in need and helping to contain the spread of COVID-19 and emerging variants.

“Thanks to Congress and the generosity of the American people, the U.S. government has already contributed $2 billion to support the COVAX AMC, out of a total planned $4 billion through 2022. The United States is currently the largest donor to COVAX, making up nearly forty percent of the COVAX AMC funding commitments announced to date.

“This event will be live-streamed on Gavi’s website, gavi.org and open to the public.  For more information email OES_PA_DG@State.gov.”

Gavi’s press release of 29 March 2021 announcing the event is copied below and provides the needs that hopefully will be met by Thurday’s event. See Gavi, United States to host launch event for Gavi COVAX AMC 2021 investment opportunity, 29 March 2021, https://www.gavi.org/news/media-room/united-states-host-launch-event-gavi-covax-amc-2021-investment-opportunity.

Geneva, 29 March 2021 – The United States government announced today that it will host the launch of the Investment Opportunity for the Gavi COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC). The virtual event, which will take place in April, will be co-hosted by José Manuel Barroso, Chair of the Gavi Board, and the Secretary of State and USAID Administrator on behalf of the United States. It will bring together world leaders, the private sector, civil society and key technical partners to present the case for additional resources for the Gavi COVAX AMC. 

“Country demand for COVID-19 vaccines has increased significantly in light of new COVID-19 variants, and the need for additional financing has become more urgent. In addition to committing US$ 4 billion to support Gavi’s COVID-19 related work, the United States is a long-standing supporter of the Alliance. It was one of Gavi’s original six donors and has contributed more than US$ 2.7 billion to Gavi’s core work since 2000. 

“’We welcome U.S. leadership in hosting the launch of the Gavi COVAX AMC Investment Opportunity,’ said José Manuel Barroso, Gavi Board Chair. ‘The United States has been a key Gavi partner for more than two decades, playing a critical role in helping the Alliance expand access to lifesaving immunisations for the most vulnerable around the world. Its recent contribution of $4 billion for procurement and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines for lower-income countries has made the United States Gavi’s top donor and a leader in the global pandemic response. With U.S. financial and diplomatic support, Gavi is very well positioned to mobilize the funds and the doses we need to end the acute phase of the pandemic.’

“The Gavi COVAX AMC is an innovative mechanism that seeks to provide access to up to 1.8 billion donor-funded doses of COVID-19 vaccines for 92 lower-income economies. In order to achieve that goal and build on the contributions made by donors so far, Gavi will be seeking at least US$ 2 billion in additional funding for the AMC in 2021. The Investment Opportunity will outline how Gavi will use this funding to support equitable access around the world, thus helping end the acute stage of this pandemic. The Investment Opportunity also looks ahead to the future, describing how to address the pandemic as it continues to evolve. 

“’As the United States has made clear through its Gavi partnership and commitments to global health security, no one is safe until everyone is safe,’ said Dr Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi. ‘Gavi is thrilled to co-host the launch of the Investment Opportunity with the United States. With new donor funding, we will be able to procure up to 1.8 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses for lower-income countries. Strong U.S. support for the AMC is a reminder that COVAX offers the fastest, most comprehensive way out of the acute phase of the global pandemic.’

“’The emergence of new, more transmissible COVID-19 variants makes fair global access to vaccines more important than ever to protect the most vulnerable, reduce the prevalence of disease and slow down viral mutation.’ said Dr Richard Hatchett, Chief Executive Officer of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which manages COVAX vaccine research and development. ‘Equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines will benefit the entire world, so I’m delighted that the U.S. will help COVAX to secure additional donor funding for lower-income countries.’

“Hon. Kwaku Agyeman-Manu, Minister of Health of Ghana, which took one the first deliveries of COVAX-supported vaccine doses, remarked that ‘this is about fairness, about justice, and about bringing a swift end to the pandemic. COVID-19 has affected all of us, and we must protect at risk populations everywhere if we are ever going to see a return to normal. We will only recover fully if we recover together and with its support for COVAX, the United States is helping set the course for a safer, more resilient world.’

“The Gavi COVAX AMC is a central part of the COVAX Facility, the global pooled procurement mechanism designed and administered by Gavi. Thanks to the support of COVAX AMC donors, coupled with the demand and resources of 191 participating economies, the Facility has already begun to deliver doses – the majority to lower-income countries – as part of the largest and most rapid global vaccine rollout in history.

“COVAX, the vaccines pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, is co-convened by Gavi, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the World Health Organization (WHO) – working in partnership with UNICEF as a key delivery partner, developed and developing country vaccine manufacturers, the World Bank, and others. It is the only global initiative that is working with governments and manufacturers to ensure COVID-19 vaccines are available worldwide to both higher-income and lower-income countries.”

Challenges to COVID vaccines through COVAX from concerns over AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson

A large portion of total vaccine doses expected in 2021 through COVAX is from AstraZeneca/Serum Institute of India and from Johnson & Johnson. AstraZeneca has had early production issues and the Serum Institute of India (which licenses the AstraZeneca vaccine for production) has curtailed exports in March and April (and possibly longer) because of the large increases in new COVID-19 infections in India and a redirection of production of vaccine doses for use in India. The AstraZeneca vaccine (from AstraZeneca and from the Serum Institute) constitute the bulk of doses expected in the first half of 2021 by COVAX and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to be a major supply source in the second half of 2021 as well as Novavax (either produced by Novavax or by license from the Serum Institute. However, both the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have seen temporary stoppage of use by one or more countries flowing from a number of serious blood cot situations for patients who have taken the vaccine (causation under investigation). The AstraZeneca vaccine, which has been available for longer and under more scrutiny, has been limited in terms of age eligibility in a number of countries at this point. The AstraZeneca vaccine is the lowest priced vaccine (Novavax has an identical price to COVAX of $3.00/dose but is not yet approved). See UNICEF, COVID-19 vaccine market dashboard, https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashboard (prices). COVAX has a $3.00/dose ceiling price, so it is assumed that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is similarly priced because of the pricing cap used by COVAX. With options, purchase agreements with COVAX have AstraZeneca/Serum Institute supplying some 700 million doses, Johnson & Johnson 500 million doses and Novavax (if approved) 1.1 billion doses. Id (COVID-19 vaccine supply agreements).

The challenge for COVAX and the low- and middle-income countries dependent on supplies from COVAX is the cost and availability of supplies if delays in shipments from the Serum Institute of India are prolonged or if there develops hesitancy in using vaccines which, while approved by many countries, carry some additional risk of serious blood clots. The prices recorded by the UNICEF data base show all other vaccines as significantly higher cost than the three supplying large quantities to COVAX. This suggests much larger financial needs to acquire the doses needed to address the “acute stage” of vaccination — 20% of populations representing health care and those at high risk — if COVAX must change sourcing for the major part of its vaccine doses. It also raises questions about the ability of other vaccines to fill the gap volume-wise in 2021 if major vaccines from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson are not widely accepted or if exports are delayed for months out of India for each of AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax (if approved).

While the event on Thursday will be focused on raising funds to meet the perceived needs of COVAX at the present time, those needs may be significantly larger in the coming months depending on developments.

Other funding and supply options

While the COVAX effort has been developed to handle the acute phase through contributions, the vaccination needs to get the world fully vaccinated are a multiple of the doses that COVAX is focused on procuring in 2021-2022.

The World Bank has earmarked $12 billion for vaccines and infrastructure for vaccinations for the world’s needy. Many low- and middle-income countries are working with suppliers directly or with Individual countries to obtain doses outside of the volumes expected from COVAX. Suppliers alone or in conjunction with governments have been working to license other producers and to ramp up production so that, depending on approvals of various vaccines, global production by the end of 2021 could be 10-15 billion doses. For example, the Quad countries (United States, Japan, India and Australia) have announced a plan to expand production in India to supply around one billion doses (2021-2022) to countries in the Indo-Pacific region paid for by Quad members and distributed by Australia. The UNICEF vaccine dashboard shows 6.9 billion doses of capacity of all vaccines under development or approved in the first half of 2021 increasing to 14.2 billion doses of capacity in the second half of 2021. See UNICEF, COVID-19 vaccine market dashboard, https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashboard (capacity). Thus, there should be significant additional capacity available later in 2021 for vaccine doses needed for low- and middle-income countries.

Similarly, it is likely that as major countries like the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and others get their populations vaccinated, there will be significant volumes of vaccines that have been bought by these countries that can be distributed to other countries in the last months of 2021 and in 2022.

Some of these efforts may be undertaken in consultation or conjunction with COVAX.

Conclusion

COVAX is an important effort at facilitating vaccinating large parts of the world against the COVID-19 pandemic, including many low- and middle-income countries. Many countries and the EU have led efforts in 2020 to increase funding for the effort. With the Biden Administration rejoining the World Health Organization and reengaging with multilateral organizations, and with the support of the U.S. Congress in funding U.S. contributions to COVAX, this Thursday’s event co-hosted by the United States and Gavi is an important chance to help COVAX receive the additional funding needed for its 2021 objectives.

Because the pandemic continues to be problematic around the world, there are many moving parts to a successful global vaccination effort including availability of vaccines, efficacy of vaccines including against new variants, ability to overcome vaccine hesitancy among portions of the population in many countries and the evolving understanding of human reactions to some of the vaccines available.

Greater cooperation among health administrators and the WHO would seem important to ensure that safe vaccines are not derailed because of discovered risks where the balance of benefits to risks strongly supports continued availability and use of the vaccines (with appropriate warnings). Where restrictions are appropriate, greater cooperation would permit a common approach versus differing restrictions which can only serve to cause confusion to the public and encourage vaccine hesitancy. COVID-19 reported cases globally are presently 137 million with deaths approaching 3 million. Vaccination doses administered globally are 806 million with serious adverse reactions and deaths quite limited (likely in the thousands globally). Serious adverse reactions and deaths if tied to vaccines are obviously a concern that should be addressed appropriately. However, eliminating vaccine availability to large portions of populations where there are not other options available risk far greater damage.

Global agricultural trade — U.S. efforts at the WTO to expand agricultural trade

The United States has a long history of promoting expanded agricultural trade. It has been an issue of importance to many countries, though the level of protection in the agricultural space has been and remains very large. The Uruguay Round was an initial effort to tariffy various distortions restricting trade in agriculture, cap and make an initial reduction in tariffs, ensure minimum market access, cap and reduce subsidies and more. Future agricultural negotiations were built into the Uruguay Round’s Agreement on Agriculture. While elements of liberalization have been agreed since 1995(e.g., elimination of agricultural export subsidies), there has not been success on opening up agricultural markets through tariff liberalization.

For the last seven years, the United States has sought better understanding of the challenges to agricultural trade from tariff implementation issues. See Tariff Implementation Issues, Communication from the United States of America, G/AG/W/132, 4 June 2014.

Starting in the Trump Administration, the United States teed up six areas affecting market access from Members’ implementation of tariffs that need discussion and potential action. See Tariff Implementation Issues – June 2018 Update, Communication from the United States, JOB/AG/141, 25 July 2018.

“The United States of America has identified six areas within the area of market access that further analysis of Members’ current implementation of tariffs should be considered and discussed by Members in order to better understand Members’ current tariff regimes. This includes: (i) bound versus applied tariffs, (ii) complex tariffs, (iii) high tariffs (e.g., tariff peaks), (iv) issues with TRQs, (v) agricultural safeguards (SSGs), and (vi) regional/preferential trade agreements.” (page 2).

While the June 2018 submission from the U.S. looked at all six areas listed, the U.S. has since submitted more detailed papers on the first four topics during the remainder of the Trump Administration, and, on March 31, 2021, the Biden Administration submitted a paper on the fifth topic, agricultural safeguards. See Tariff Implementation Issues — Bound versus Applied Tariffs, Communication from the United States, JOB/AG/147, 9 November 2018; Tariff Implementation Issues — Complex Tariffs, Communication from the United States, JOB/AG/164, 31 July 2019; Tariff Implementation Issues — Tariff Peaks, Communication from the United States, JOB/AG/167, 24 October 2019; Tariff Implementation Issues — Issues with Tariff Rate Quotas, Communication from the United States, JOB/AG/169, 22 November 2019; Tariff Implementation Issues — Issues with Special Agricultural Safeguards, Communication from the United States, JOB/AG/192, 6 April 2021.

The 2014 submission by the United States had flagged the first three of the six issues and introduced the need for analysis. See G/AG/W/132 at 1-3.

“1.1. Market access barriers, and namely tariffs, continue to be an important obstacle to realizing the WTO’s objective of promoting trade. However, no multilateral discussions have been undertaken in this area since 2008.

“1.2. Under the various WTO agreements, tariffs are the only permitted import restriction (other than WTO-consistent non-tariff measures)1, and all agriculture tariffs are now bound. The manner in which tariffs are administered, however, can have significant effects on actual market access. In some cases, market access is facilitated, for example through the application of tariffs at levels below bound rates or through preferential access as a result of reciprocal trade agreements. In other cases, market access may be impeded, for example through the administration of complex tariff regimes or through the utilization of high tariffs and peak tariffs.

“1.3. The need for an updated understanding of the current state of Members’ tariff regimes is urgent if Members expect to have productive discussions on a possible market access result as part of the Post-Bali Work Program. In this regard, and as a start, we request that the Secretariat issue, in one compilation for the Membership, the most recent tariff and trade data available, including on Members’ average bound and applied tariff rates in agriculture, the percentage of agricultural tariffs bound at zero by Members, as well as Members’ global share of agricultural imports and exports. We also urge Members to ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are up to date. This includes Integrated Data Base (IDB) notifications, as well as notifications of regional trade agreements.

“1.4. This paper identifies some of the issues associated with tariffs, supported with examples of tariff application and administration from the United States of America and other Members. The United States of America invites other Members to provide similar reports of their current administrative schemes in upcoming meetings of the Committee on Agriculture (CoA).

“2 BOUND VERSUS APPLIED TARIFF RATES (CORRESPONDING WITH EXHIBIT A)

“2.1. Many WTO Members maintain high bound rates in their WTO market access commitments. However, in practice, these Members oftentimes apply significantly lower tariffs allowing a government to modify its rates in response to domestic and international market conditions. As demonstrated in Figure 1, some Members have bindings substantially greater than applied rates, while others apply tariffs at the bound level. To illustrate this situation, it is useful to consider the situation of a diverse group of Members: Brazil, Chile, India, and Indonesia. These countries on average apply less than one-third of their average bound tariff, while Mexico applies on average less than one-half of its average bound commitment. However, a number of other Members, such as China and the United States of America, have lower bindings and tariffs for all agricultural products with tariffs applied at the bound level.

“2.2. The U.S. simple average bound agricultural tariff rate, according WTO tariff profile data, is 5% and applied tariffs also average 5%. The United States of America applies a tariff less than its bound level for three agricultural tariff lines, all of which are wool products2. Exhibit A illustrates bound and applied rates for several WTO Members to demonstrate the gap between bound and applied tariffs.

3 COMPLEX TARIFFS

“3.1. Another tariff issue concern the use of non-simple (ad valorem or specific) tariffs. These include formulaic measures (e.g. Minimum Import Prices, Price Bands, Variable Levies, Gate Price mechanisms) as well as simple discretionary tariff increases and decreases. These measures are aimed at controlling import competition and limiting competition for domestic producers. Oftentimes, this is accomplished by ensuring imports do not enter the domestic market at prices below domestic market prices. By blocking consumers’ access to price competition, these measures distort trade flows by restricting imports and allowing high-priced domestic products to be competitive. Ultimately, this reduces overall quantities imported.

“3.2. Approximately 30 Members choose to bind some tariffs at non-ad valorem (NAV) terms such as specific (a set value per quantity), compound (e.g. ad valorem and specific in same tariff), or mixed rates (e.g. either ad valorem or applied, whichever is higher). The share of NAV tariffs ranges from as low as 0.2% (Israel and Indonesia) to as high as 77% (Switzerland) of all agricultural lines. Based on the World Tariff Profiles 2013, nine countries including Canada, the
European Union, Iceland, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United States of America bound a significant share of their agricultural goods in NAV format.

“3.3. The United States of America applies specific duties for some agricultural products, as well as some compound duties. Specific duties have the virtue of predictability and are eroded over time with price inflation.

4 HIGH TARIFFS (CORRESPONDING WITH EXHIBIT B)

“4.1. An additional tariff issue is the use of high tariffs. High tariffs are a particular problem for trade in agriculture, as some Members that otherwise may have low average tariffs reserve “tariff peaks” for sensitive tariff lines. Tariffs in agriculture can exceed 1,000% and some Members apply tariffs at a very high level across an entire sensitive sector. Examples include: Canadian dairy and poultry tariffs (which exceed 200%); Japanese rice tariffs (which are between 500 and 700%); and most of the India’s agricultural tariff schedule (where tariffs are bound at 300%, 180%, or 100% for nearly all products).

“4.2. As displayed in Figure 2, the average tariff within various categories of agriculture is low. The United States of America has bound approximately 33% of its tariffs on agriculture at zero, approximately 43% at 1-5%, approximately 20% at 6 – 25%. Only a few tariffs exceed these tariff categories, including peanuts and sugar (with maximum rates of over 150%); dairy (140%); and some processed products (at 100%). The highest U.S. tariff is for a tobacco line, which has an ad valorem equivalent of over 400%. See Exhibit B for a summary comparison of average tariff rates by sector compared to the maximum tariff for the sector. Understanding which sectors and which countries have the most protective tariffs in place will help the Committee better understand the application of trade restrictions.

“1 See, e.g. Agreement on Agriculture, Article 4.2.

“2 USHTS 5101.21, 5101.29, and 5101.30. Bound rate of 6.5 cents/kg + 5%, applied tariff of zero.”

The 2018 effort by the United States provided additional rationale for focusing on tariff implementation issues and expanded the list of issues from three to six as noted above. See JOB/AG/141 at 1.

“1.1. In June 2018, the World Trade Organization Agriculture and Commodities Division and the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation organized the Symposium on the Agriculture Policy Landscape to discuss the relationship between trade and agriculture. All of the various experts from around the world emphasized the need for more trade to improve global welfare, help producers, and address the challenges of sustainably feeding a growing world population. To achieve this, they stressed the importance of market-oriented trade as a means of advancing consumer and farmer welfare in all countries.

“1.2. In the agricultural sector, tariffs remain much higher than for other sectors, but have been reduced by more than one-quarter since 2001.1 Reducing tariffs, as was done through the Uruguay Round, contributes to the welfare gains from trade. However, it is important to have reciprocal reductions in tariffs. Indeed, it was shown that these welfare gains were greatest because of tariff reductions from both developed and developing countries. Reductions by only developed countries or only by developing countries resulted in suboptimal welfare gains.2 Further, locking in tariff reductions by all countries can contribute to substantial gains to global welfare going forward.3

“1.3. In June 2014, the United States of America submitted “Tariff Implementation Issues” (G/AG/W/132) to the Committee on Agriculture. In that communication, the United States of America noted that agricultural tariffs can distort global markets and make it difficult for consumers to have access to producer’s products. However, in some cases, market access is facilitated, for example, through the application of tariffs at levels below bound rates or through
preferential access as a result of reciprocal trade agreements.

“1.4. In order for Members to have productive discussions to address the challenges facing agricultural trade today, an understanding of the current state of Members’ tariff regimes, amongst other policy types, is needed. In 2014, the United States of America requested that the Secretariat issue, in one compilation for the Membership, the most recent tariff and trade data available, including on Members’ average bound and applied tariff rates in agriculture, the percentage of agricultural tariffs bound at zero by Members, as well as Members’ global share of agricultural imports and exports. While the United States of America is resubmitting this request to the Secretariat, the United States of America also urges Members to ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are up to date. This includes Integrated Data Base (IDB) notifications, as well as notifications of regional trade agreements.

“1 Bureau, Guimbard and Jean, Agricultural Trade Liberalization, 2018, page 20, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1477-9552.12281.

“2 Caliendo, et. al., Tariff Reductions, Entry, and Welfare: Theory and Evidence for the Last Two Decades, April 2017, http://www.nber.org/papers/w21768.pdf.

“3 Bureau et. al. (2018).”

In the five papers looking at individual tariff implementation issues, the U.S. provides a conclusion based on its analysis.

For “bound versus applied tariffs, the relevant conclusions are:

“1.13. Water is prevalent in all major agricultural product groups. In addition, although differences between bound and applied rates occur for both developed and developing Members and large and small trading economies, the level of water is larger for developing Members and smaller trading economies than it is for most developed Members and large trading economies.

“1.14. The United States also notes the issues of transparency specified in the beginning of the paper. The United States once again, requests the Secretariat to compile information and that Members ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are up to date. The United States further urges Members to consider what other data could improve Members’ knowledge.” JOB/AG/147 at 8.

On the issue of complex tariffs, the relevant conclusions are:

“1.22. This paper constitutes the United States’ attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the tariff treatment faced by Members. In its analysis, the United States has found that complex tariffs are prevalent in all major agricultural product groups (with an exception of cotton). In addition, complex tariffs can be found in both developed and developing Members, large and small trading economies. However, complex tariffs are more prevalent in developed Members and large trading economies than most developing Members and smaller trading economies.

“1.23. Improving access to customers contributes to the likelihood that farmers get better prices for their products and in turn the more production they can undertake. Similarly, expanding access to more producers benefits consumers who have more choice and competition when seeking supplies. More open and transparent markets contribute to greater productive efficiencies, particularly for value chains, and foster competition that spurs investment and technological innovation.

“1.24. The United States again notes the issues of transparency. It requests that the Secretariat continue to compile information and that Members ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are up to date and consider what other data could improve Members’ knowledge.” JOB/AG/164 at 9.

On the issue of high tariffs (tariff peaks), the U.S. conclusions are:

“1.16. In its attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the tariff treatment faced by Members, the United States of America has found that tariff peaks are prevalent in all major agricultural product groups (with an exception of cotton). In addition, tariff peaks can be found in both developed and developing Members, large and small trading economies. The tariff range is larger for developed Members and large trading economies than most developing Members and small trading economies. The same can be said in regards to the frequency of tariffs above 50%. When considering the WTO definition of “tariff peaks” however, developing Members and large agricultural trading economies have higher frequency of tariff peaks than developed Members and small trading economies.

“1.17. Improving access to customers contributes to the likelihood that farmers get better prices for their products and in turn the more production they can undertake. Similarly, expanding access to more producers benefits consumers who have more choice and competition when seeking supplies. More open markets contribute to greater productive efficiencies, particularly for value chains, and foster competition that spurs investment and technological innovation.

“1.18. The United States of America again notes the issues of transparency as specified in the beginning of the paper. It requests the Secretariat to continue compiling information noted in this submission and Members to ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are up to date and consider what other data could improve Members’ knowledge.” JOB/AG/167 at 7-8.

On the question of issues with TRQs (tariff rate quotas), the U.S. conclusions are:

“1.37. The United States aims to deepen Members’ understanding of the prevalence and different methods of administration of tariff rate quotas. In its analysis, the United States has found that TRQs are used by 40 Members, both developing and developed Members alike. TRQs are prevalent in all major agricultural product groups, with dairy, sugar and animal products having a larger share of TRQs than other product groups. However, it is worth mentioning that nearly half of scheduled quotas are administered as applied tariffs.

“1.38. Although TRQs were designed as a tool of access, very high over quota and in-quota tariffs, low fill rates, and confusing operation and administration of TRQs are still prevalent today that can make TRQs a tool of protection rather than liberalization.

“1.39. The United States requests that the Secretariat continue to compile and publish information on TRQ administration, with a focus on deeper analysis of the issues identified in this submission. Likewise, the United States requests that Members ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to TRQs are up to date and incorporate data that could improve other Members’ knowledge.” JOB/AG/169 at 15.

On special agricultural safeguards, the U.S. conclusions are:

“1.27. The United States aims to share this analysis to deepen Members’ understanding of SSG utilization and notification. In its analysis, the United States has found that 33 Members have recourse to the SSG, both developing and developed Members alike, covering on average, 16% of their respective bound tariff schedules. However, less than one-third of the Members have actually taken recourse of SSGs in the last 10 years, applying the safeguard to, on average, 40% of the scheduled SSG lines. Those lines are largely made up of “animal products”, “dairy products” and “cereals and preparations”. Over the last 10 years, developing Members have utilized SSGs to a greater degree than developed Members.

“1.28. In its assessment of Member notifications, the United States has also encountered issues with Members either failing to notify SSG use or non-use, or not notifying within the timeframe specified in G/AG/2. In addition, Members that notify SSG usage lack consistency in reporting the information. These issues may cause confusion for importers and exporters of concerned products and reduces transparency for the WTO Members in reviewing utilization of the SSG in the context of the AoA. Therefore the United States encourages Members to examine these issues and discuss approaches to strengthen compliance with requirements and improve notification practices related to the SSG.

“1.29. The United States also requests that the Secretariat continue to compile and publish information on SSGs, akin to the note from January 2017 (TN/AG/S/29/Rev.1), with a focus on deeper analysis of the issues identified in this submission. Likewise, the United States requests that Members ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to SSGs are up-to-date and notified.” JOB/192 at 12.

Conclusion

There is an effort as part of preparation for the 12th Ministerial Conference to pursue a number of agriculture issues that have been pressed by various Members for a number of years. A number of the issues being pursued are looking at providing greater protections to developing countries. Of interest to many developed and developing countries are market opening measures, although it is unclear if anything will happen in this area with regard to tariffs.

For the United States, agricultural market access is a critical issue to most sectors and has broad Congressional support in both parties. The effort to develop a greater understanding of how tariffs are working in fact started in the Obama Administration following the impasse in the Doha Development Agenda in 2008 including on agricultural market access, was pursued in the Trump Administration and is being continued in the Biden Administration. The U.S. focus is useful to help flag just how distorted agricultural trade remains, the lack of transparency on many issues and the fact that greater market access for all necessarily must involve reduction in tariffs and countries handling all aspects of tariffs (including TRQs and SSGs) in a manner consistent with the obligations undertaken. The U.S. submissions are neutral in coverage and include U.S. actions as well as major agricultural exporters and importers.

What was described by the U.S. in its June 2018 on tariff implementation issues, continues to be true as the world tries to move through the COVID-19 pandemic. As was previously quoted from the U.S. communication, “All of the various
experts from around the world emphasized the need for more trade to improve global welfare, help producers, and address the challenges of sustainably feeding a growing world population. To achieve this, they stressed the importance of market-oriented trade as a means of advancing consumer and farmer welfare in all countries.”

The question for the WTO membership and the new WTO Director-General is whether in agriculture the WTO can in fact expand market access for agricultural goods as part of the 12th Ministerial Conference or whether meaningful agricultural liberalization will continue to evade the WTO.

Because of the wealth of analysis contained in the U.S. submissions, the documents referenced in this note are embedded below.

W132

JobsAG141

JobsAG147

JobsAG164

JobsAG167

JobsAG169

JobsAG192

IMF April World Economic Outlook, IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings and U.S. efforts on global access to vaccines

The IMF released today its April 2021 World Economic Outlook, increasing projected global growth in 2021 and 2022 from its earlier projections. See IMF, World Economic Outlook, Managing Divergent Recoveries, April 2021, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2021/03/23/world-economic-outlook-april-2021. Global contraction was less severe than previously thought in 2020 and the rebound is larger though there remains significant uncertainty.

“Global prospects remain highly uncertain one year into the pandemic. New virus mutations and the accumulating human toll raise concerns, even as growing vaccine coverage lifts sentiment. Economic recoveries are diverging across countries and sectors, reflecting variation in pandemic-induced disruptions and the extent of policy support. The outlook depends not just on the outcome of the battle between the virus and vaccines—it also hinges on how effectively economic policies deployed under high uncertainty can limit lasting damage from this unprecedented crisis.

“Global growth is projected at 6 percent in 2021, moderating to 4.4 percent in 2022. The projections for 2021 and 2022 are stronger than in the October 2020 WEO. The upward revision reflects additional fiscal support in a few large economies, the anticipated vaccine-powered recovery in the second half of 2021, and continued adaptation of economic activity to subdued mobility. High uncertainty surrounds this outlook, related to the path of the pandemic, the effectiveness of policy support to provide a bridge to vaccine-powered normalization, and the evolution of financial conditions.”

The following tables from the IMF webpage taken from the new report show first the global, advanced economies and developing economy outlook for 2020, 2021, 2022 and then for various major countries and regions for the same periods.

Much has been written about the need for debt relief and greater access to vaccines for many low-income countries to help them get through the pandemic and back on track for economic expansion. The IMFBlog from April 5, 2021 provides an overview of the serious challenges faced by low income countries and the potential sources of financial support available through the IMF if supported by member countries. See IMFBlog, Funding the Recovery of Low-income Countries After COVID, April 5, 2021, https://blogs.imf.org/2021/04/05/funding-the-recovery-of-low-income-countries-after-covid/.

“Several factors hamper the economic recovery of low-income countries. First, they face uneven access to vaccines. Most of these countries rely almost entirely on the multilateral COVAX facility—a global initiative aimed at equitable access to vaccines led by a consortium of international organizations. COVAX is currently set to procure vaccines for just 20 percent of the population in low-income countries. Second, low-income countries have had limited policy space to respond to the crisis—in particular, they have lacked the means for extra spending * * *.

“Third, pre-existing vulnerabilities, including high levels of public debt in many low-income countries, and weak, sometimes negative, total factor productivity performance in some low-income countries continue to act as a drag on growth.”

The blog post reviews estimated financial needs over the next five years. The estimated needs are $200 billion to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic (including adequate vaccinations), an additional $250 billion to speed convergence with advanced economies, and an additional $100 billion if various risks materialized. Potentially $550 billion — obviously a huge number.

The blog identifies various potential sources of funds to address these needs that can be available through the IMF.

“- Expanding access to concessional resources under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, including extending access to emergency financing. From March 2020 to March 2021, about $13 billion has been approved to more than 50 low-income countries. The IMF is also currently reviewing its lending framework to low-income countries, beyond the temporary increase in access limits.

“- Proposal for a new allocation of Special Drawing Rights . Support is building among the IMF’s membership for a possible SDR allocation of $650 billion. This would help address the long-term global need for reserve assets, and would provide a substantial liquidity boost to all members.

“- Debt service relief through the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust to 29 eligible countries. The recently-approved third tranche covering the period April-October 2021 brings total debt service relief up to $740 million since April 2020. Such relief provides space for poor countries to scale up spending on priority areas during the pandemic.

“- Supporting a further extension of the G-20 Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) until end-December 2021. The DSSI delivered US$5.7 billion in debt service relief for 43 countries in 2020 and is expected to deliver up to US$7.3 billion of additional debt service suspension through June 2021 for 45 countries.

“The needs of the poorest countries over the next five years are acute. But they are not out of reach. A strong, coordinated, comprehensive package is needed. This will secure a rapid recovery and transition to a green, digital, and inclusive growth that will accelerate convergence of low-income countries to their advanced economy counterparts.”

The IMF Spring meeting this week is taking up various issues designed to ensure assistance to the world’s low income countries. See, e.g., IMF, PRESS RELEASE NO. 21/99, IMF Executive Board Extends Debt Service Relief for 28 Eligible Low-Income Countries through October 15, 2021, April 5, 2021, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/04/05/pr2199-imf-executive-board-extends-debt-service-relief-28-eligible-lics-october-15-2021.

The Rockefeller Foundation released a paper recently arguing that funding from the Special Drawing Rights could be used to help procure vaccines for low- and middle-income countries to enable 70% vaccination rates by the end of 2022. See PR Newswire, The Rockefeller Foundation Releases New Financing Roadmap to End Pandemic by End of 2022, April 6, 2021, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-rockefeller-foundation-releases-new-financing-roadmap-to-end-pandemic-by-end-of-2022-301262501.html; Rockefeller Foundation, One for All: An Action Plan for Financing Global Vaccination and Sustainable Growth, https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/One-for-All-An-Action-Plan-for-Financing-Global-Vaccination-and-Sustainable-Growth-Final.pdf.

Other multilateral organizations such as the World Bank have been actively involved helping developing countries including using billions for vaccine procurement. See World Bank Group, WBG Vaccine Announcement – Key Facts, March 30, 2021, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/factsheet/2020/10/15/world-bank-group-vaccine-announcement—key-facts

“COVID-19 vaccines, alongside widespread testing, improved treatment and strong health systems are critical to save lives and strengthen the global economic recovery. To provide relief for vulnerable populations, low- and middle-income countries need fair, broad, and fast access to effective and safe vaccines.

“That’s why the World Bank (WB) is building on its initial COVID-19 response with $12 billion to help poor countries purchase and distribute vaccines, tests, and treatments. The first WB-financed operation to support vaccine rollout was approved in January 2021

“By March 31, 2021, the WB had already committed $1.6 billion in vaccine financing in 10 countries including Afghanistan, Cabo Verde, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, and Tunisia. More than 40 additional projects are in the pipeline and will be approved in the coming weeks and months.”

The World Banks’s Spring meeting is also occurring this week and addressing the COVID-19 pandemic remains a critical part of the World Bank’s agenda.

U.S. announced larger role in global vaccine rollout

President Biden has had as his first priority to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States while committing to greater involvement in multilateral organizations. He has rejoined the World Health Organization, contributed $2 billion to the COVAX facility to obtain vaccines for low- and middle-income countries, with an additional $2 billion to be contributed as other countries fulfill their pledges, agreed to a fund raising event for COVAX later in April, loaned four million vaccine doses to Canada (1.5 million) and Mexico (2.5 million) and agreed with Japan, India and Australia to produce one billion doses of a vaccine (2021-2022) in India with funding from the US and Japan and distribution by Australia to countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

On April 5, 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the Biden Administration’s intention to be more actively involved internationally as it gets the U.S. population vaccinated. See U.S. Department of State, Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to the Press on the COVID Response, April 5, 2021, https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-remarks-to-the-press-on-the-covid-response/. The portion of Secretary Blinken’s remarks dealing with greater international engagement and the appointment of the U.S. coordinator for global COVID response and health security is copied below.

“There’s another major element to stopping COVID, and that’s what we’re here to talk about today.

“This pandemic won’t end at home until it ends worldwide.

“And I want to spend a minute on this, because it’s critical to understand.  Even if we vaccinate all 332 million people in the United States tomorrow, we would still not be fully safe from the virus, not while it’s still replicating around the world and turning into new variants that could easily come here and spread across our communities again.  And not if we want to fully reopen our economy or start traveling again.  Plus, if other countries’ economies aren’t rebounding because they’re still afflicted with COVID, that’ll hurt our recovery too.

“The world has to come together to bring the COVID pandemic to an end everywhere.  And for that to happen, the United States must act and we must lead.

“There is no country on Earth that can do what we can do, both in terms of developing breakthrough vaccines and bringing governments, businesses, and international institutions together to organize the massive, sustained public health effort it’ll take to fully end the pandemic.  This will be an unprecedented global operation, involving logistics, financing, supply chain management, manufacturing, and coordinating with community health workers who handle the vital last mile of health care delivery.  All of that will take intensive diplomacy.

“The world has never done anything quite like this before.  This is a moment that calls for American leadership.

“Now, the Biden-Harris administration’s main focus to date has been to vaccinate Americans – to slow and ultimately stop COVID here at home.  We at the State Department have been focused on vaccinating our workforce in the United States and in embassies and consulates around the world.  That’s been the right call.  We serve the American people first and foremost.  Plus, we can’t forget that the United States has had the highest number of COVID cases of any country in the world by a significant margin.  So stopping the spread here has been urgently needed for our people and for the world.  We have a duty to other countries to get the virus under control here in the United States.

“But soon, the United States will need to step up our work and rise to the occasion worldwide, because again, only by stopping COVID globally will Americans be safe for the long term.

“Moreover, we want to rise to the occasion for the world.  By helping bring to a close one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, we can show the world once again what American leadership and American ingenuity can do.  Let’s make that the story of the end of COVID-19.

“We’ve already taken some important steps.

“On day one of the administration, we rejoined the World Health Organization.  By being at the table, we can push for reforms so that we can prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to the next biological threat.

“Congress recently provided more than $11 billion for America’s global COVID response, which we’ll use in several ways, including to save lives by supporting broad and equitable vaccine access; providing aid to mitigate secondary impacts of COVID, like hunger; and helping countries boost their pandemic preparedness.

“I’d note that this builds on a long tradition of American leadership.  The United States is the world’s largest donor to global health by far, including through international efforts like the Global Fund and the World Health Organization – and through our own outstanding global health programs, like PEPFAR, which has helped bring the world to the cusp of the first AIDS-free generation.

“We’ve also made a $2 billion donation to the COVAX program, which will supply COVID vaccines to low-income and middle-income countries.  We’ve pledged another $2 billion that we’ll provide as other countries fulfill their own pledges.

“We’ve already loaned vaccines to our closest neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

“And we’ll work with global partners on manufacturing and supplies to ensure there will be enough vaccine for everyone, everywhere.

“As we get more confident in our vaccine supply here at home, we are exploring options to share more with other countries going forward.

“We believe that we’ll be in a position to do much more on this front.

“I know that many countries are asking for the United States to do more, some with growing desperation because of the scope and scale of their COVID emergencies.  We hear you.  And I promise, we’re moving as fast as possible.

“We’ll be guided every step by core values.

“We won’t trade shots in arms for political favors.  This is about saving lives.

“We’ll treat our partner countries with respect; we won’t overpromise and underdeliver.

“We’ll maintain high standards for the vaccines that we help to bring to others, only distributing those proven to be safe and effective.

“We’ll insist on an approach built on equity.  COVID has already come down hard on vulnerable and marginalized people.  We cannot allow our COVID response to end up making racial and gender inequality worse.

“We’ll embrace partnership, sharing the burden and combining strengths.  The collaboration we formed a few weeks ago with the Quad countries – India, Japan, Australia – is a good example.  Together, we’re increasing the world’s manufacturing capacity so we can get more shots out the door and into people’s arms as fast as possible.

“And by the way, one of the reasons we work through multilateral collaborations where possible is because they often share and defend these same values.  For example, the COVAX initiative is designed explicitly to ensure that low- and middle-income countries can also get vaccines, because it’s only through broad and equitable vaccination that we’ll end the pandemic.

“Finally, we’ll address the current emergency while also taking the long view.  We can’t just end this pandemic.  We must also leave our country and the world better prepared for the next one.

“To do that, we’ll work with partners to reform and strengthen the institutions and systems that safeguard global health security.  That will require countries to commit to transparency, information sharing, access for international experts in real time.  We’ll need a sustainable approach to financing, surge capacity, and accountability, so all countries can act quickly to stem the next outbreak.  And we’ll keep pushing for a complete and transparent investigation into the origins of this epidemic, to learn what happened – so it doesn’t happen again.

“All told, this work is a key piece of President Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ agenda.  We’ve got to make sure that we can better detect, prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics and other biological threats.  Otherwise, we’ll be badly letting ourselves and future generations down.

“This is a pivotal moment – a time for us to think big and act boldly.  And the United States will rise to the challenge.

“I’m here today with a remarkable leader who will help us do just that.

“Gayle Smith was the administrator of USAID for President Obama, and served on the National Security Council for both President Obama and President Clinton, where we first got to know each other and worked together.  She has deep experience in responding to public health threats, having helped lead the U.S. response to the Ebola crisis in 2014, having worked for years on the global fights against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS.  She is joining us from her most recent role as president and CEO of the ONE Campaign, which fights extreme poverty and preventable disease, primarily in Africa.

“She’s tested.  She’s highly respected.  She will hit the ground running.  And I can say from having worked with Gayle and admired her for years that no one will work harder, faster, or more effectively to get us to the finish line.

I”’m grateful she’s agreed to serve as the coordinator for global COVID response and health security.  Gayle Smith, the floor is yours.  Thank you for doing this.

MS SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  It’s a pleasure to be able to work with you again, and to call you Mr. Secretary.

“I’d also like to thank my friends at the ONE Campaign for making this possible.  And I look forward to working with the men and women of the department and across the federal government, including because I know what you can do.

“I want to thank in particular some really smart scientists, President Biden, and the staff and volunteers at Howard University, where tomorrow I will get my second dose of the COVID vaccine.

“That vaccine is good for the body, but it’s also good for the mind and the soul, because it inspires hope in the future.  And our job is to shape that future.

“I fought some viruses in the past, and I’ve learned two lessons.  The first is that if the virus is moving faster than we are, it’s winning.  The second is that with unity of purpose, science, vigilance, and leadership, we can outpace any virus.

“America’s done it before.  Eighteen years ago, a Republican president launched a bold initiative to take on the HIV/AIDS epidemic.  A Democratic president went on to expand that mission in scope.  In 2014, the Obama-Biden administration, with the strong and generous support of Congress, defeated the world’s first Ebola epidemic.

“Our challenges now are two: first, to shorten the lifespan of a borderless pandemic that is destroying lives and livelihoods all over the world, and the second is to ensure that we can prevent, detect, and respond to those future global health threats we know are coming.

“American leadership is desperately needed, and I’m extremely confident we can rise to the occasion.  I’m honored to be here, and thank you very, very much.”

Conclusion

This is an important week with both the IMF and World Bank Spring meetings and important agenda items on the continued global response to the pandemic and helping countries build back better. The IMF April World Economic Outlook has good news about the direction of global activity although the pace of recoveries will vary significantly among countries and regions. While global production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has ramped up enormously in the few months that vaccines have been approved and while there are many additional potential vaccines under development or in trials, the early months have seen some production challenges and distribution skewed to a handful of countries. Many of those countries with the most vaccine doses (U.S., UK, EU, India) have been countries or regions with many of the largest number of infections and deaths. Even so, the effort at equitable and affordable access to all needs additional work.

An article in the New York Times reviews an exciting potential development of a low-cost, easy to produce vaccine that could dramatically expand the ability of developing countries to produce their own vaccines. See New York Times, Researchers Are Hatching a Low-Cost Coronavirus Vaccine , April 5, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/health/hexapro-mclellan-vaccine.html (“A new vaccine for Covid-19 that is entering clinical trials in Brazil, Mexico, Thailand and Vietnam could change how the world fights the pandemic. The vaccine, called NVD-HXP-S, is the first in clinical trials to use a new molecular design that is widely expected to create more potent antibodies than the current generation of vaccines. And the new vaccine could be far easier to make.
Existing vaccines from companies like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson must be produced in specialized factories using hard-to-acquire ingredients. In contrast, the new vaccine can be mass-produced in chicken eggs — the same eggs that produce billions of influenza vaccines every year in factories around the world.”).

Production is ramping up for the various vaccines that have been approved in various countries. Producers continue to explore adding capacity or licensing production to other producers. Governments – like the United States, Japan, India and Australia – are finding creative ways for nations to work together to build up additional capacity to reach countries with needs. COVAX has proven to be an important vehicle for distributing vaccines to low- and middle-income countries. As capacities expand and additional funding is available, COVAX will continue to be a critical part of the solution.

The IMF and World Bank have the ability to address many of the challenges facing developing countries with the support of its member governments. Hopefully, this week’s meetings will make a difference. And individual countries can and are doing more. Secretary Blinken’s remarks show the U.S. will be increasing its role and working with others to ensure global success. For a world fatigued from the pandemic, a path to resolution is needed now. Hopefully, we are close.

Recent G7 Trade Ministers Meeting — WTO issues of interest

The United Kingdom has the presidency of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United States and United Kingdom, with European Union as a guest) in 2021. On March 31, trade ministers had a virtual meeting which included WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. On the U.K. G7 web page, the objectives of the Trade Track of the G7 during the UK Presidency is reviewed. See G7 Trade Ministers, https://www.g7uk.org/trade-ministers/

“The UK’s 2021 G7 Presidency will feature a dedicated Trade Track at the G7 for the first time, led by the Department for International Trade. The Trade Track will be an opportunity for the UK to work with our G7 partners to shape a bold global vision for economic recovery that sees us build back better together – greener, more prosperous, resilient, and fair. 

“To do so, the Trade Track will focus on four priority areas:

“- WTO reform

“- trade and health

“- digital trade

“- trade and climate policy”

The Chair of the G7 Trade Track released a statement on March 31. The Chair in 2021 is the U.K. Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities, the Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP. See G7 Trade Ministers’ Meeting – Chair’s Statement, https://www.g7uk.org/g7-trade-ministers-meeting-chairs-statement/. The statement is copied below.

G7 Trade Ministers’ Meeting – Chair’s Statement – G7 UK Presidency 2021

“Today, the G7 Trade Ministers held their first meeting under the inaugural G7 Trade Track. Trade Ministers underlined the vital role global trade has played in tackling the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, welcomed the contribution trade can make to a strong economic recovery, and emphasised the need to build back better. They reaffirmed the importance of the rules-based multilateral trading system and welcomed Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the new WTO Director-General, to their meeting.

“The G7 Trade Track has a bold purpose – to make the case globally for free and fair trade. G7 Trade Ministers are convinced that when the world’s leading democratic trading nations unite behind a shared agenda to make the global trading system fairer, more sustainable, and responsive to the needs of our citizens, this is an agenda that partners across the world will be ready to share in and help shape.

“Free and Fair Trade

“G7 Trade Ministers support a global trading system that is free and fair and works for all countries and peoples. This year represents a clear inflection point for the world and the global economic architecture. G7 Trade Ministers recognised the importance of providing the leadership needed to respond to the challenges faced by the multilateral trading system. Trade Ministers expressed their determination to provide the sustained effort and momentum necessary to ensure progress is made in the reform of the WTO to help secure shared prosperity for all. Therefore, G7 Trade Ministers will use this year’s G7 to advance the agenda of the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference and provide vital political momentum to the WTO reform debate. Trade Ministers will explore reforms that can enhance the WTO as a forum for negotiations, recognising the positive role that the plurilateral initiatives have played in engaging a broad spectrum of WTO members. G7 Trade Ministers also acknowledge that important work on transparency, special and differential treatment, and dispute settlement needs to be undertaken in the WTO.

“The multilateral trading system can be a force for good. It has increased competition and economic growth, helped raise living standards, and lifted millions out of poverty. It must serve the needs of all its members and provide the basis for free and fair trade. G7 Trade Ministers recognised that global trade should work for democratic and open-market systems and that these should not be undermined by unfair trade.

“Yet, not all of our citizens have felt the benefits of trade. Moreover, practices that distort markets and competition lead to decreased efficiency and reduced perceptions of fairness and trust in the system. Echoing the G7 Leaders’ Statement at Charlevoix in 2018, G7 Trade Ministers recalled the importance of fostering a truly level playing field. Trade Ministers will discuss the impact market-distorting practices, such as harmful industrial subsidies, including those causing excess capacity in some sectors, are having on our economies and chart a way to address these collectively.

“Modernising Trade

“G7 Trade Ministers believe that the multilateral trading system is in need of reform to reflect changes in the global economy and environment. As the world transitions to net zero, Trade Ministers acknowledged the risk of carbon leakage to the environment and the potential ways of mitigating this. Acknowledging the role of trade in tackling the accelerating climate and biodiversity crisis, Trade Ministers recognised that 2021 will be a crucial year to drive international efforts to address climate change and protect nature, including at the UNFCCC COP26. Trade Ministers will therefore deepen discussions on the nexus between trade and climate and the environment with a focus on identifying opportunities for collaboration and facilitating sustainable supply chains. Additionally, G7 members are committed to reaching a meaningful conclusion in the WTO negotiations of fisheries subsidies – which have a clear impact on sustainability.

“Stressing that trade has to be at the service of citizens, G7 Trade Ministers underlined the importance of advancing women’s economic empowerment through trade, particularly to support the Covid-19 recovery. They shared the view that greater representation of women in trade as leaders, business owners, and fairly compensated workers will ultimately deliver more and better jobs and more growth in our economies. G7 Members will promote deepened studies and more cross-cutting analyses on trade policy and gender equality by international organisations, such as SheTrades Outlook. Recognising the progress that is being made on trade and gender equality at the WTO, Trade Ministers intend to use their next discussions to explore new opportunities to improve the evidence base to support women in trade and discuss their priorities in this area for the next WTO Ministerial Conference.

“G7 Trade Ministers also agreed to further consider the ways in which trade policy can develop to support trade in health products, and increased supply chain resilience, as we work to build back better from Covid-19. The scale and pace of the spread of the virus, and an uneven global recovery, are challenging all our economies. G7 Members also encourage cooperation among governments, manufacturers, and other industry players to identify policies which support ramped-up production and distribution of vaccines.

“Digital Trade

“G7 Trade Ministers recognised the importance of digital trade to growth, innovation, productivity, and prosperity. They recalled the immense opportunities that it offers to our people and our businesses, and they underlined the central role that it can play in the economic recovery from the pandemic. G7 Members are united in their support for open digital markets and their opposition to digital protectionism. As a group of market-based economies governed by the rule of law, they believe that digital markets should be competitive, transparent, and accessible to international trade and investment. They agree on the importance of data free flow with trust, safeguards for consumers and businesses, and digital trading systems that allow goods and services to move seamlessly across borders. G7 Trade Ministers resolve to promote digital trade worldwide and to pursue global governance that is fair and inclusive. They agreed to further develop a set of high-level principles during this Presidency that will guide the G7 approach to digital trade.

“Digital trade remains an important area for the creation of new rules at the WTO. The rules governing digital trade should be responsive to innovation and emerging technologies, so that businesses, consumers, and workers can harness their full potential. G7 Trade Ministers committed to redoubling their efforts to advance the Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce at the World Trade Organization. They aim to achieve substantial progress by the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference.

“G7 Trade Ministers look forward to strengthening their dialogue and further advancing a shared agenda at their next meeting in May.”

The statement from the Chair was not surprising considering the composition of the G7 and the focus of the members on getting the pandemic under control, reviving economic and trade activities (“building back better), restoring relevance to the WTO by achieving positive developments at the 12th Ministerial Conference and pursuing WTO reform on a host of areas including updating rules to address distortions (e.g., industrial subsidies) not adequately addressed in current agreements, operation of special and differential treatment, transparency, and dispute settlement. Most G7 members also support the Joint Statement Initiatives on a range of topics, including digital trade, domestic services regulation, SMSEs, empowerment of women in trade and gender equality, and trade’s role in addressing the climate crisis.

While some G7 members have different views on specific issues, the opening G7 trade ministers meeting lays out a positive broad-based agenda for having trade help get the world through the pandemic, return to greater prosperity, and address longstanding challenges at the WTO both to relevance in the 21st century and to different economic systems rendering current rules only partially relevant.

Statements by several of the trade ministers who participated add some individual country focus. For example, USTR Amb. Katherine Tai participated in the meeting. A press release from USTR dated March 31 identifies the U.S. views. See USTR, Statement from USTR Spokesman Adam Hodge on Ambassador Katherine Tai’s Participation in the First G7 Trade Ministers Meeting, 03/31/2021, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2021/march/statement-ustr-spokesman-adam-hodge-ambassador-katherine-tais-participation-first-g7-trade-ministers

“WASHINGTON – United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai today virtually participated in the G7 Trade
Ministers Meeting hosted by the United Kingdom and chaired by Secretary of State Liz Truss. Ministers were joined in
this meeting by WTO Director General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. This was the first meeting of the G7 Trade Ministers.
Ambassador Tai and other G7 Ministers discussed the challenges facing the global trading system from non-market
forces and the need to work collectively to advance free and fair trade. Dr. Okonjo-Iweala and the Ministers discussed
pathways to achieving meaningful outcomes for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference scheduled later this year.
Ministers also discussed their plans for future work on digital trade, women’s economic empowerment, and climate
change objectives. Ambassador Tai emphasized the Biden-Harris Administration’s objective to ensure that trade policy
focuses on benefitting workers, in addition to businesses and consumers. The Ministers are united in their desire to
support policies that will facilitate a rapid end to the pandemic and recognize that trade can contribute to a strong and
equitable recovery.”

Similarly, Canadian Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade Mary Ng participated in the G7 trade ministers meeting. The following press release was issued on March 31 by the Canadian government. See Government of Canada, Minister Ng participates in first G7 trade and investment ministers’ meeting, March 31, 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2021/03/minister-ng-participates-in-first-g7-trade-and-investment-ministers-meeting.html

“As the Government of Canada continues to address the COVID-19 pandemic, collaborating with international partners is essential to fighting the virus and ensuring a sustainable and inclusive global economic recovery from the pandemic.

“Today, the Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, participated in the first G7 trade and investment ministers’ meeting, which was hosted by the United Kingdom under its G7 presidency for 2021. The ministers agreed to pursue an ambitious G7 trade and investment agenda that responds to the challenges posed by the pandemic and to support an inclusive and sustainable recovery with the WTO at its core.

“Minister Ng welcomed the discussion with Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the new WTO director general, on the future of the WTO. The G7 ministers agreed to work together to advance concrete outcomes in advance of the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in November.

“Pursuing trade and investment policies that support women and Indigenous and racialized communities is key to ensuring Canada’s economic recovery from COVID-19 is inclusive and meaningful. During a session on women’s economic empowerment, Minister Ng highlighted initiatives that Canada has undertaken to support women’s success in international trade. The Minister encouraged G7 members to participate in the implementation of the WTO trade and gender initiative and, as a specific example, encouraged member countries to use the SheTrades Outlook, an interactive policy tool that helps governments put in place policies to improve women’s participation in international trade.

“During the meeting, Minister Ng also emphasized the importance of digital trade and highlighted Canada’s work on a number of initiatives, such as the ongoing WTO negotiations on e-commerce.

“Minister Ng reiterated Canada’s support for the United Kingdom-led G7 work plan to enhance the capacity of the trading system to respond to public health emergencies. Ministers discussed the Ottawa Group’s Trade and Health Initiative, which seeks to strengthen the resilience of global supply chains and facilitate trade in essential medical supplies and vaccines.

“The trade ministers acknowledged the impacts of unfair trade practices on their economies and agreed to work together to address them. Recognizing the important role that trade has in tackling climate change and ensuring a sustainable environment, the ministers agreed to continue their efforts to take action on climate change through initiatives such as the WTO trade and environment sustainability initiative.”

The Canadian press release also provided a quote from Minister Ng:

“’Canada continues to work closely with our international partners to support Canadian businesses, workers and communities as we fight the pandemic and support an inclusive, sustainable economic recovery through rules-based international trade that works for everyone. We will make sure that the interests of Canadians across the country are at the forefront of our discussions as we work toward ensuring a strong, sustainable, and inclusive economic recovery.’

“- Mary Ng, Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade”

The press reported reactions within China to the G7 trade ministers meeting with a focus on G7 concerns with addressing reforms to industrial subsidies. See, e.g., South China Morning Post, G7 pressure on China over subsidies ‘doomed to fail’ even as Biden administration gathers coalition, 1 April 2021, https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3128006/g7-pressure-china-over-subsidies-doomed-fail-even-biden (“Trade ministers from the Group of 7 (G7) – the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Italy and Japan – on Wednesday pledged collective action against ‘harmful industrial subsidies’ without naming China directly. China responded by saying it ‘won’t accept any accusation’ of its trade practice as it ‘has always honoured its commitments since it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) at the end of 2001.”).

Conclusion

The G7 is a potentially important grouping, particularly to articulate a vision for the future of the multilateral trading system. While the changes in global trade over the last quarter of a century ensure more voices need to be considered than those in the G7 (or those aligned with them), there is no forward movement without them.

The WTO, if a static organization, will continue its slide into irrelevance. The organization suffers a myriad of structural problems which have reduced the effectiveness of all of its core functions. There is a lack of common purpose among the WTO Members. Its rules reflect the world of the 1980s with no significant update in the rules since then.

The pressing global challenges flowing from the pandemic, from climate change and changing technology need a World Trade Organization that is up to date, nimble and driven by an agreed vision to promote sustainable development and greater equitable participation and benefits.

The initial articulation of G7 objectives from trade ministers is a step in the right direction. Time will tell whether the G7 can internally agree on the details of a trade agenda, can translate that into support among a large group of WTO Members and lead to meaningful agreements and reform. The opposition to meaningful reform from China and others within the WTO and the consensus principle of decision making renders it highly unlikely that the WTO will prove up to the needs of the moment. But efforts of the G7 and other groups is critical if a global trading system is to survive. One can only hope for success from the G7 efforts.

Global vaccinations against COVID-19; developments and challenges in the roll-out for many countries

Globally there have been extraordinary developments of vaccines to help against the COVID-19 vaccine. UNICEF has set up a COVID-19 Vaccine Market Dashboard which notes that at present 14 vaccines have been approved by one or more countries, that the companies in production or testing vaccines report existing or intended capacity in 2021 of 21 billion doses (depends on other vaccines being approved and companies overcoming any bottlenecks in supply), indicates that there are 10.4 billion “secured vaccine doses”, that there are 3.56 billion doses “secured and optioned for the COVAX facility” and that prices in the market range from $2.06/dose to $44.00/dose. See UNICEF, COVID-19 Vaccine Market Dashboard, https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashboard (visited April 2, 2021). The dashboard contains a great deal of information looking at information on products, capacity, agreements, price and delivery.

The COVAX facility, administered by Gavi, put out in early March the first round of allocation of vaccine doses procured for low- and middle-income countries and others choosing to participate in acquiring through COVAX to improve equitable and affordable access for all. 142 of the countries participating in the COVAX facility were identified as allocated delivery of specific quantities of vaccine from a total of 237 million doses that were expected to be available to COVAX during the February – May timeline. See The COVAX Facility, First Round of Allocation: Astra Zeneca/Oxford Vaccine (manufactured by Astra Zeneca & licensed and manufactured by Serum Institute of India), https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/covid/covax/COVAX-First-round-allocation-of-AZ-and-SII.pdf . 87 of the 92 countries who will receive doses at no cost or reduced cost are included in the first round allocation (“AMC” countries). The March 2, 2021 document is embedded below.

COVAX-First-round-allocation-of-AZ-and-SII

In an April 1, 2021 update, Gavi notes that to date COVAX has shipped more than 33 million doses to 74 country. See GAVI, COVAX vaccine roll-out, https://www.gavi.org/covax-facility (visited April 2, 2021). While the ramp-up of deliveries to COVAX is scheduled to occur over time, COVAX received notice in late March of delays for shipments from India (Serum Institute of India) in both March and April, which COVAX has estimated could be a delay for as much as 90 million doses and indicated the delays were due to internal needs in India for more doses to support their own vaccination program. See UNICEF, COVAX updates participants on delivery delays for vaccines from Serum Institute of India (SII) and AstraZeneca, 25 March 2021,https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/covax-updates-participants-delivery-delays-vaccines-serum-institute-india-sii-and. The bulk of the press release is copied below.

GENEVA/NEW YORK/OSLO, 25 March 2021 – Deliveries of COVID-19 vaccines produced by the Serum Institute of India (SII) to lower-income economies participating in the COVAX Facility will face delays during March and April as the Government of India battles a new wave of COVID-19 infections. COVAX and the Government of India remain in discussions to ensure some supplies are completed during March and April.

“According to the agreement between Gavi and the Serum Institute of India (SII), which included funding to support an increase in manufacturing capacity, SII is contracted to provide COVAX with the SII-licensed and manufactured AstraZeneca (AZ)-Oxford vaccine (known as COVISHIELD) to 64 lower-income economies participating in the Gavi COVAX AMC (including India), alongside its commitments to the Government of India.

“To date, COVAX has been supplied with 28 million COVISHIELD doses and was expecting an additional 40 million doses to be available in March, and up to 50 million doses in April.

“COVAX has notified all affected economies of potential delays. SII has pledged that, alongside supplying India, it will prioritize the COVAX multilateral solution for equitable distribution.

“Participating economies have also received WHO guidance on optimizing the national deployment doses of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine in a constrained supply environment.

“Separately, the COVAX Facility has informed participants allocated AstraZeneca-manufactured doses of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine that some of the first deliveries due in March are now set to take place in April.

“In this early phase of COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, vaccine manufacturers require time to scale and optimize their production processes. AstraZeneca, which uses a novel supply chain network with sites across multiple continents, is working to enable initial supply to 82 countries through COVAX in the coming weeks.

“COVAX retains its objective of supplying initial doses of vaccines to all participating economies in the first half of the year before ramping up significantly in the second half of 2021. To date, COVAX has shipped vaccines to over 50 countries and economies.”

While there have been various manufacturing challenges in the early months of vaccine roll-outs, the decision by India to slow distribution of vaccine doses purchased by COVAX will clearly slow distribution to many least developed and developing countries dependent on COVAX for their vaccine doses. Since as much as a third of vaccine doses that COVAX has distributed have gone to India, the Indian government has what is at least a public relations challenge at the present time. See India Today, India received one-third of vaccines made for poor countries by India under COVAX programme: Report, 30 March 2021, https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/vaccine-updates/story/india-received-one-third-of-vaccines-made-for-poor-countries-by-india-under-covax-programme-report-1785242-2021-03-30. However, with a number of variants of the virus circulating widely and with infections increasing in many countries around the world, the delays are of concern to many governments with anxious populations looking for a path past the pandemic.

In a paper from Airfinity and the St. Gallen Endowment for Prosperity through Trade on March 31, 2021, an effort is made to look at the likely damage to low income countries from the announced delays in shipments to COVAX. See Simon J. Evenett and Matt Linley, Halting India’s Vaccine Exports: The Fallout, 31 March 2021. The paper estimates that the delays in shipments will push back achieving even minimum vaccinations by 60-90 days for many of the COVAX recipient countries. The paper is embedded below.

AF-SGEPT-TL1-31-March-2021-finalised

While there is a lot of positive news being reported (e.g., expansion of capacities and expected shipments in 2021, effectiveness of some of the existing vaccines against some of the new variants, agreement between the United States, Japan, India and Australia to generate one billion doses of a vaccine in India for distribution in the Indo-Pacific area in 2021 and 2022, and the United States hosting a funding effort for COVAX later in April to help close the funding needs for 2021 (after the U.S.’s $4 billion contribution)), delays for up to 90 million doses ( 37.97% of the total doses expected in the February – May 2021 time period by COVAX) to those dependent on COVAX is a significant challenge. See, e.g., Gavi, United States to host launch event for Gavi COVAX AMC 2021 investment opportunity, 29 March 2021, https://www.gavi.org/news/media-room/united-states-host-launch-event-gavi-covax-amc-2021-investment-opportunity; March 25, 2021, Global vaccinations for COVID-19 — continued supply chain and production issues and a new wave of infections in many countries delay greater ramp up for some until late in the second quarter of 2021, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/25/global-vaccinations-for-covid-19-continued-supply-chain-and-production-issues-and-a-new-wave-of-infections-in-many-countries-delay-greater-ramp-up-for-some-until-late-in-the-second-quarter-of-2021/; March 12, 2021, COVID-19 vaccines – U.S., Japan, India and Australia agree to one billion doses for Indo-Pacific countries, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/12/covid-19-vaccines-u-s-japan-india-and-australia-agree-to-one-billion-doses-for-indo-pacific-countries/; March 12, 2021, The 8-9 March  “Global C19 Vaccine Supply Chain and Manufacturing Summit” – efforts to ramp-up production, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/12/the-8-9-march-global-c19-vaccine-supply-chain-and-manufacturing-summit-efforts-to-ramp-up-production/.

The WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is planning a meeting on vaccines later in April that was described in a WTO press release as follows.

“DG Okonjo-Iweala also said that she plans to convene an event in mid-April to discuss ramping up COVID-19 vaccine production and how the WTO can contribute to a more rapid and equitable distribution of vaccines. 

“The event, to be held under Chatham House rules, will include all regional member groups, representatives from vaccine manufacturers from developing and developed countries, civil society groups working on access to medicine, and other relevant stakeholders.

“’The idea is to move us along on our quest to solve this unacceptable inequitable access of poor countries to vaccines,’ she said. ‘At the bottom of this is a very serious scarcity in supply. And how to solve it is to look at how we expand manufacturing in all its ways.’ 

“She stressed that the event would help advance global discussions on access to vaccines. She expressed hope both for increased vaccine manufacturing in the short- to medium-term, and a longer-term framework agreement that would provide for automatic access to vaccines and other medical products for developing countries in future health crises, including a way forward on the TRIPS waiver proposal many of them support.

“’We also need to look to the future and agree a framework where countries do not need to stand in the queue in order to get access to life-saving vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics,’ she said, emphasizing that this can be done while still incentivizing research and development.”

WTO, Director-General urges WTO members to deliver concrete results this year, 30 March 2021, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/dgno_30mar21_e.htm.

Conclusion

Governments are understandably focused on trying to end the pandemic at home as a first priority. The efforts of the WHO, Gavi, CEPI and UNICEF through the COVAX facility in recent years has provided a welcome source of hope for many nations for greater equity in distribution and in affordability of vaccines, including in the last year addressing the enormous challenge presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries and private groups have stepped up with major funding contributions to make vaccine available. Individual governments are also working to increase supplies globally. Many bottlenecks have arisen with the large number of inputs and the enormous increase in demand that has arisen over the last year. There is a need for continued efforts by governments and businesses to address the challenges and to see that the needs of the low- and middle-income countries can be met in a timely manner as well. While there will be a lot more production in the second half of 2021, there are and will continue to be challenges in the second quarter. Focus on identifying challenges and global cooperation to solve bottlenecks will do a lot to ensure greater global success in the remainder of 2021.

Biden Administration continues treatment of Hong Kong as no longer autonomous from China, inter alia, for purposes of marking of products

The U.S. Department of State released on March 31, 2021 the 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report. See U.S. Department of State, Hong Kong Policy Act Report, Press Statement, March 31, 2021, https://www.state.gov/hong-kong-policy-act-report/; U.S. Department of State, 2021 Hong Kong Policy Act Report, REPORT, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, March 31 2021, https://www.state.gov/2021-hong-kong-policy-act-report/.

The Press statement is copied below (emphasis added).

“Over the past year, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has continued to dismantle Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, in violation of its obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law.  In particular, the PRC government’s adoption and the Hong Kong government’s implementation of the National Security Law (NSL) have severely undermined the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong.

“Each year, the Department of State submits to Congress the Hong Kong Policy Act Report and accompanying certification.  In conjunction with this year’s report, I have certified to Congress that Hong Kong does not warrant differential treatment under U.S. law in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997.

“This report documents many of the actions the PRC and Hong Kong governments have taken against Hong Kong’s promised high degree of autonomy, freedoms, and democratic institutions.  These include the arbitrary arrests and politically-motivated prosecutions of opposition politicians, activists, and peaceful protesters under the NSL and other legislation; the postponement of Legislative Council elections; pressure on judicial independence and academic and press freedoms; and a de facto ban on public demonstrations.

“I am committed to continuing to work with Congress and our allies and partners around the world to stand with people in Hong Kong against the PRC’s egregious policies and actions.  As demonstrated by the March 16 Hong Kong Autonomy Act update, which listed 24 PRC and Hong Kong officials whose actions reduced Hong Kong’s autonomy, we will impose consequences for these actions.  We will continue to call on the PRC to abide by its international obligations and commitments; to cease its dismantlement of Hong Kong’s democratic institutions, autonomy, and rule of law; to release immediately and drop all charges against individuals unjustly detained in Hong Kong; and to respect the human rights of all individuals in Hong Kong.”

The Report covers a range of issues including discussion of:

  • national security law,
  • impact on rule of law,
  • arrests, bail, and investigations proceedings,
  • impact on democratic institutions,
  • progress towards universal suffrage and impact on the legislature,
  • impact on the judiciary,
  • Impact on Freedom of Assembly,
  • Impact on Freedoms of Speech and Association,
  • Impact on Freedom of the Press,
  • Disinformation/Malign Political Influence Activities,
  • Impact on Internet Freedoms,
  • Impact on Freedom of Movement,
  • Impact on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
  • Impact on U.S. Citizens,
  • Impact on Academics and Exchanges,
  • Areas of Remaining Autonomy,
  • U.S.-Hong Kong Cooperation and Agreements,
  • Export Controls,
  • Sanctions Implementation,
  • U.S. Sanctions
  • Hong Kong Policy Act Findings

The summary of the report is copied below.

“Consistent with sections 205 and 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (the “Act”) (22 U.S.C. 5725 and 5731) and section 7043(f)(3)(C) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021 (Div. K, P.L. 116-260), the Department submits this report and the enclosed certification on conditions in Hong Kong from June 2020 through February 2021 (“covered period”).

“Summary

“The Department of State assesses during the covered period, the central government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) took new actions directly threatening U.S. interests in Hong Kong and inconsistent with the Basic Law and the PRC’s obligation pursuant to the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 to allow Hong Kong to enjoy a high degree of autonomy. In the Certification of Hong Kong’s Treatment under United States Laws, the Secretary of State certified Hong Kong does not warrant treatment under U.S. law in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997.

“By unilaterally imposing on Hong Kong the Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL), the PRC dramatically undermined rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including freedoms protected under the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Since the imposition of the NSL in June 2020, Hong Kong police arrested at least 99 opposition politicians, activists, and protesters on NSL-related charges including secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with a foreign country or external elements. These include 55 people arrested in January for organizing or running in pan-democratic primary elections in July 2020, 47 of whom were formally charged with subversion on February 28. Additionally, the Hong Kong government used COVID-19-related public health restrictions to deny authorizations for public demonstrations and postponed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) elections for at least one year.”

Ongoing WTO dispute filed by Hong Kong

Hong Kong has filed a request for consultations and a request for a panel at the WTO to contest actions during the Trump Administration which resulted in a requirement that goods from Hong Kong exported to the United States be labeled as manufactured in China because of prior actions by China that limited Hong Kong autonomy. A panel has been established but not yet composed. See WTO, DS597: United States — Origin Marking Requirement, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds597_e.htm. I have reviewed the dispute in prior posts. See February 23, 2021, WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting of February 22, 2021 — panels authorized in two matters; impasse on the Appellate Body remains, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/23/wto-dispute-settlement-body-meeting-of-february-22-2021-panels-authorized-in-two-matters-impasse-on-appellate-body-remains/; January 16, 2020, Request for the establishment of a WTO panel by Hong Kong, China contesting the U.S. origin marking requirement, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/16/request-for-the-establishment-of-a-wto-panel-by-hong-kong-china-contesting-the-u-s-origin-marking-requirement/.

What is clear from yesterday’s Hong Kong Policy Act Report is that the concerns in the United States on the actions by China to restrict Hong Kong’s autonomy have not gone away with the Biden Administration but have increased with the escalating actions by the Chinese government. While Hong Kong will pursue its challenge, one shouldn’t expect a change in U.S. position nor should one expect a resolution in the WTO in the next several years.

“Blowing up the trading system” — Clyde Prestowitz’s suggested way for the world to move forward in light of China’s economic system

The Global Business Dialogue (GBD) publishes periodically “THE TTALK QUOTES”. On March 30, 2021, GBD posted a TTALK Quotes on “CHINA, THE TRADING SYSTEM, AND THE ALTERNATIVES” with a quote from Clyde Prestowitz, ‘[There is] only one alternative – “blowing up the system” or, more politely, creating a new or alternative system.”

The quote is from a Washington Monthly article by Mr. Prestowitz from March 24, 2021 entitled, “Blow Up the Global Trading System, Yes, really. U.S. and international efforts to stop Beijing’s economic onslaught haven’t worked. It’s time for President Biden to go big,” https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/03/24/blow-up-the-global-trading-system/. Mr. Prestowitz has a new book out, The World Turned Upside Down (Yale University Press, 2021) and some of the recommendations in the Washington Monthly article reflect his thinking from his new book.

While the title is provocative, the concerns expressed are similar to the ones reviewed in Amb. Dennis Shea’s remarks to the Coalition for a Prosperous America and those expressed last year by Mogens Peter Carl that China’s economic system isn’t consistent with the WTO rules and China has no intention of modifying its approach to global trade. See March 29, 2021:  China and the WTO – remarks by Dennis C. Shea to the Coalition for a Prosperous America, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/29/china-and-the-wto-remarks-by-dennis-c-shea-to-the-coalition-for-a-prosperous-america/.

Unlike Mr. Carl’s call for market economy countries to withdraw from the WTO and start a new organization, Mr. Prestowitz proposes in the Washington Monthly article “Reinventing the Globalization System” which involves seven action steps.

The first is for the United States “to impose a Market Adjustment Charge (MAC) on all non-direct investment (not in new means of production) into the United States.” The MAC is explained in his new book (pages 276-277) but is a charge that would vary based on the size and trend of the U.S. trade deficit.

The second step “would be for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to adopt Keynes’ Bretton Woods proposal that all countries should have balanced trade in the medium to long term.” To achieve this result, a duty would be applied on imports from countries that run persistent trade surpluses.

The third step would be for the United States to seek strong enforcement within the IMF and by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The fourth step would be forming a supersized FTA including USMCA, CPTPP and the EU, and open to other market economies. Prestowitz calls this grouping the “Free World Free Trade Agreement”.

The firth step addresses the need for market economies to improve their competitiveness against the state directed and massively subsidized world of China. The step calls for the creation of “a free world high technology leadership project”

The sixth step calls on the U.S. to reorganize government and concentrate resources to support the technology leadership initiative.

The final step involves actions the U.S. can take to spur domestic manufacturing (use of Defense Production Act, curbing corporate lobbying, and review corporate overseas investment plans.

In his book, Mr. Prestowitz has a chapter on actions the U.S. should take to regain its leadership position. It starts with a Market Access Charge, calls for the imposition of a value added tax and a host of actions to ensure the U.S. is “the world’s most competitive economy.” Page 278.

U.S. actions are aimed at improving U.S. competitiveness

A number of the actions Mr. Prestowitz calls for on U.S. competitiveness are similar to actions being introduced today in part 1 of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan (est. cost of $2.5 trillion). See White House Briefing Room, FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan, March 31, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/. Excerpts are copied below. The full fact sheet is then embedded.

“While the American Rescue Plan is changing the course of the pandemic and delivering relief for working families, this is no time to build back to the way things were. This is the moment to reimagine and rebuild a new economy. The American Jobs Plan is an investment in America that will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our country’s infrastructure, and position the United States to out-compete China. Public domestic investment as a share of the economy has fallen by more than 40 percent since the 1960s. The American Jobs Plan will invest in America in a way we have not invested since we built the interstate highways and won the Space Race.

“The United States of America is the wealthiest country in the world, yet we rank 13th when it comes to the overall quality of our infrastructure. After decades of disinvestment, our roads, bridges, and water systems are crumbling. Our electric grid is vulnerable to catastrophic outages. Too many lack access to affordable, high-speed Internet and to quality housing. The past year has led to job losses and threatened economic security, eroding more than 30 years of progress in women’s labor force participation. It has unmasked the fragility of our caregiving infrastructure. And, our nation is falling behind its biggest competitors on research and development (R&D), manufacturing, and training. It has never been more important for us to invest in strengthening our infrastructure and competitiveness, and in creating the good-paying, union jobs of the future.

“Like great projects of the past, the President’s plan will unify and mobilize the country to meet the great challenges of our time: the climate crisis and the ambitions of an autocratic China. It will invest in Americans and deliver the jobs and opportunities they deserve. But unlike past major investments, the plan prioritizes addressing long-standing and persistent racial injustice. The plan targets 40 percent of the benefits of climate and clean infrastructure investments to disadvantaged communities. And, the plan invests in rural communities and communities impacted by the market-based transition to clean energy.”

FACT-SHEET_-The-American-Jobs-Plan-_-The-White-House

Reform of the WTO or a different approach?

The U.S. is looking to push WTO reform and work with trading partners to address challenges posed by China’s economic model. The EU and Japan are similarly looking at WTO reform as a way forward. See, e.g., February 18, 2021, The European Commission’s 18 February 2021 Trade Policy Review paper and Annex — WTO reform and much more proposed, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/18/the-european-commissions-18-february-2021-trade-policy-review-paper-wto-reform-and-much-more-proposed/.

The G7 trade ministers are meeting today. See Reuters, UK trade minister tells G7: We must stop fragmentation of global trade, March 31, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-trade-truss-idUSS8N2L708T. The seven G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US (EU participates as a guest). WTO reform is one of the topics being discussed today. The U.S., EU and Japan have been working on potential reforms to the Subsidies Agreement to address the massive industrial subsidies provided by China as well as looking at potential disciplines on state-owned/invested enterprises and forced technology transfer. However, in a consensus system like the WTO, it is hard to imagine meaningful reforms that will address Chinese distortions achieving results within the WTO.

The U.S. is not presently considering a “Free World Free Trade Agreement” as proposed by Mr. Prestowitz. The U.S. is also not proposing pulling out of the WTO as suggested last year by Mogens Peter Carl and entering into a new organization that is limited to market economies. Each of the U.S. and the EU have the ability to act unilaterally if necessary but obviously that is a less desirable approach to global governance.

So it is likely that the U.S., EU, Japan and other leading market economies will continue to seek reform within the WTO but with likely limited results putting pressure on free trade agreements or on plurilateral arrangements to achieve a trade regime acceptable to the major market economies.

Mr. Prestowitz’s article and recent book are well done and raise some interesting ideas for addressing U.S. trade concerns with China. Some of his ideas have been advocated for by others before and have significant potential whether they have much political possibility for adoption. But in a changing global trade environment, his writings are a useful contribution and worth reading by those in trade policy positions.

For the Biden Administration, new trade agreements do not appear to be a short-term objective. Getting control of the pandemic through vaccinations and building back better through the jobs bill are the two major priorities. Trade can contribute to both, but a push for Free World Free Trade Agreement is not likely in the Biden years.

Still China’s economic system and incompatibility with the WTO are major concerns for many countries including the United States. Reform of the WTO would obviously be the best outcome for addressing China’s distortions. While hope spring eternal, the Ministerial Conference in late November 2021 in Geneva will give an idea of whether meaningful WTO reform is likely in the cards in the coming years. Such reform is highly unlikely to happen during the 2020s, if ever.

Mr. Carl’s suggestion of mass withdrawal from the WTO and creation of a new entity of market economies is interesting in addressing the blocking capacity of China but seems improbable because of China’s size and importance. With no major economy having suggested any interest in the idea, it seems implausible in the 2020s, if ever.

Mr. Prestowitz’s idea for a super-FTA of market economies is doable within the WTO and simply depends on majors like the U.S., EU, Japan and others being willing to put in the effort. But the U.S. and EU have not been able to make meaningful progress on an FTA or even harmonization of regulations over recent decades. If past is prologue, it is unlikely that such an undertaking will occur in the 2020s either, if ever.

 As British trade minister Liz Truss is reported to have said to her G7 fellow trade ministers, “We need to reverse the fragmentation of global trade and get the global system and WTO working again, otherwise we risk big countries going their own way and operating outside an agreed set of rules, which always spells trouble.” Reuters, UK trade minister tells G7: We must stop fragmentation of global trade, March 31, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-trade-truss-idUSS8N2L708T. China has effectively been going its own way even after joining the WTO at the end of 2001. Actions by the U.S., EU and others in recent years have occasionally been outside of the agreed set of rules as well. So a fourth option is that of the collapse of the global trading system (actually or practically) with a law of the jungle reasserting itself.

Time will tell which direction global trade will take.

China and the WTO – remarks by Dennis C. Shea to the Coalition for a Prosperous America

On March 26, 2021, the former Deputy USTR in Geneva during the Trump Administration, Amb. Dennis C. Shea, spoke to the Coalition for a Prosperous America. While the remarks were made in his individual capacity, the remarks reviewed the challenges for the World Trade Organization remaining relevant with the current activities of the People’s Republic of China. His remarks, entitled “Three hard truths” can be found on his linkedin page. See Remarks to CPA, 3.26.2021, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6781608096750956544/?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A6781608096750956544%29.

The three hard truths from his remarks are copied below.

“The first of these hard truths is that China’s economic system – with its unique melding of public, private, and Chinese Communist Party resources, all harnessed to advance industrial policy objectives – is incompatible with the WTO norms of market orientation, transparency, non-discrimination, and reciprocity.”

“The second hard truth is that the WTO has proven itself incapable of restraining the trade disruptive activities of the Chinese non-market economic system.”

“The third hard truth is that China does not want change at the WTO.”

Amb. Shea reviews in some detail the actions of China post-accession to move away from market reforms that trading partners expected from China’s accession to the WTO and why such actions frustrate the proper functioning of the WTO. He also reviews China’s willingness to retaliate against trading partners for their legitimate use of WTO rights and to punish trading partners for comments China views as against their interests. The import bans against Australian products when Australia urged an independent investigation into the source of the COVID-19 virus is one example mentioned. Finally, on the issue of not wanting change at the WTO, Amb. Shea reviews China’s opposition to every reform issue raised by the United States.

Amb. Shea’s remarks are worth a close read. While he doesn’t address a road forward, his well founded concerns about China’s role in the trading system and its incompatible economic system with WTO rules bring to mind a piece by a former EC Director General for Trade, Mogens Peter Carl which I reviewed in an earlier post. See July 25, 2020, A new WTO without China?  The July 20, 2020 Les Echos opinion piece by Mogens Peter Carl, a former EC Director General for Trade and then Environment, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/07/25/a-new-wto-without-china-the-july-20-2020-les-echos-opinion-piece-by-mogens-peter-carl-a-former-ec-director-general-for-trade-and-then-environment/ . I reproduce much of that post below.

“Earlier this week (July 20), a former EC Director General for Trade, Peter Carl, penned an opinion piece in Les Echos with the provocative title, “A new WTO is needed without China” (literally A new WTO must see the day without China). https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/opinion-une-nouvelle-omc-doit-voir-le-jour-sans-la-chine-1224748.

“Mr. Carl indicates in the opinion piece that ‘Europe’s trade policy has stagnated for twenty years. It no longer meets the demands of today’s world and the European public attributes the loss of millions of jobs to China.’ (all quotes from the opinion piece are informal translations by Google Translate ). The opinion is remarkable as it comes from a former senior EC trade official.

“‘Our policy is outdated and based on an outdated ideology that is identical to what it was before the arrival of China on the world state, after its accession to the WTO in 2001. Its centralized economy, its powerful industrial policy in all the key sectors, its enormous state subsidies, combined with a government apparatus and a political repression as powerful as those of the ex-USSR, swept large swathes of European and American industry. However, we act as if we were in the heyday of the 1990s, when our main competitors were other market economies, Japan, Korea, the United States. Our inaction resembles the ostrich policy and unilateral pacifism of the 1930s. We know the results. We must therefore protect our liberal economies and our open societies against adversaries. This requires a fundamental review of the trade policy of the European Union and the WTO.’

“Mr. Carl calls for a complete reform of the WTO with the EU teaming up with the U.S. and other like-minded Members but recognizes that meaningful reform will be blocked by China. ‘The solution: withdraw from the WTO and create a new international trade organization without China. Most countries would follow our example. We would return to an open world economic order between market economy countries sharing the same ideas, on the basis of clear and reinforced principles in favor of the free market.’ Mr. Carl advocates for the adoption of rules that would deal with ‘abuses’ of the China model including improved subsidy disciplines and ‘rules against social, environmental dumping and inaction on climate change.’ Such new rules are needed to permit the EU to green its economy.

“Mr. Carl, addressing concerns that his proposal represents a turn to managed trade, says simply that ‘This is what we already have, although only China manages it, and we are suffering the consequences.’

“That Mr. Carl felt the need to publish such a strongly worded opinion shows the underlying and growing tensions felt by major trading partners from a major economic power with a fundamentally different economic system than that pursued by the historic major players in world trade.

“For WTO Members and their businesses and workers, the rising discontent by many with the functioning of the WTO and its ability to achieve meaningful reform should be a wake-up call. The WTO to be relevant must have rules that address the world in the 21st century. The WTO must also be able to have Members assume increased responsibilities as their stage of economic development evolves. Similarly, the WTO must confront whether existing rules can be modified to generate greater coverage of practices by different types of economic systems. If not, the WTO must consider whether it can survive where all Members don’t follow similar economic systems.

“Unfortunately, there appears little likelihood that many of these critical reforms will be addressed in the coming years. China has objected to WTO Members trying to modify existing agreements to address distortions caused by China’s economic system. China has also objected to the U.S. effort to have Members consider whether WTO rules require Members to operate market-economy based systems. China and others have objected to U.S. efforts to define ‘developing country’ and effectively have Members take on obligations commensurate to their stage of economic development. Stated differently, China is working hard to defend the status quo and prevent consideration of reforms that would achieve greater balance among all WTO Members.

“While USTR Lighthizer and others have said that if the WTO didn’t exist, it would have to be created, Mr. Carl’s opinion suggests that one option that may take on greater appeal is the withdrawal from the WTO and the creation of a new international trade regime among countries with similar economic systems. Such a move away from the WTO would certainly involve enormous economic upheaval and political tensions. The more desirable course of action is to achieve timely reform of the WTO so that all Members feel the system achieves reasonable reciprocity.

“Time will tell whether WTO Members find a path forward or whether the WTO becomes less and less relevant and even ceases to function. In a Member driven organization, the answer lies with the membership.”

The WTO now has a new Director-General who is working to see if Members can achieve breakthroughs on the existing fisheries subsidies, make significant progress on Joint Statement Initiatives, while encouraging Members to limit export restraints on medical goods needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic, promote rapid return to trade growth post pandemic, and work on WTO reform.

The Biden Administration has a desire to work with trading partners in multilateral organizations like the WTO and has articulated the need of allies to work together to address problems caused by non-market economies like China. While the Biden Administration will certainly pursue WTO reform, Amb. Shea’s final paragraph of his remarks is on point.

“The Biden Administration has made working with friends and allies a hallmark of its diplomatic approach, particularly when it comes to China. When the Administration brings this approach to the WTO, I sincerely hope our friends and allies will appreciate the gravity of the moment and what’s at stake.”

U.S. blocks inclusion of Venezuelan request for panel on U.S. sanctions at WTO, Dispute Settlement Body meeting of March 26, 2021 postponed

The monthly regular meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body was scheduled for March 26, 2021. The proposed agenda was circulated earlier and contained as item 4, “United States – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services, A. Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Venezuela (WT/DS54/2/Rev.1)”. See Dispute Settlement Body, 26 March 2021, Proposed Agenda, WT/DSB/W/679 (24 March 2021). For background, the Venezuelan request for a panel is embedded below.

WTDS574-2R1

The United States objected to the inclusion of agenda item 4. USTR released a short statement on March 26. “The United States will reject any effort by Maduro to misuse the WTO to attack U.S. sanctions aimed at restoring human rights and democracy to Venezuela. The United States exercised its rights as a WTO Member to object to this illegitimate panel request because representatives of the Maduro regime do not speak on behalf of the Venezuelan people.” See USTR, Statement from USTR Spokesperson Adam Hodge on U.S. Action to Prevent Maduro Regime’s Attempt to Undermine U.S. Sanctions, March 26, 2021, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2021/march/statement-ustr-spokesperson-adam-hodge-us-action-prevent-maduro-regimes-attempt-undermine-us.

Venezuela did not agree to withdraw its request for a panel from the agenda with the result that Dispute Settlement Body meetings cannot proceed until there is a resolution. See Blomberg, U.S. Disrupts WTO Dispute Meeting Over Venezuela Sanctions Fight, March 26, 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/u-s-disrupts-wto-dispute-meeting-over-venezuela-sanctions-fight (“The meeting ended prematurely after Venezuela refused Washington’s demand that the WTO remove Venezuela’s dispute request from the meeting agenda, according to the official attending the meeting. The impasse means that the WTO can’t hold any regular dispute settlement meetings unless and until the U.S. or Venezuela back down.”); Inside U.S. Trade’s World Trade Online, WTO: DSB meeting postponed over U.S. objection to Venezuela panel request, March 26, 2021, https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/wto-dsb-meeting-postponed-over-us-objection-venezuela-panel-request; Reuters, U.S. blocks Venezuela bid to seek WTO review of sanctions, March 26, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-wto-usa-venezuela/u-s-blocks-venezuela-bid-to-seek-wto-review-of-sanctions-idUSKBN2BI1ZT (“Were the United States and other members to allow representatives of the illegitimate Maduro regime to exercise rights at the WTO on behalf of Venezuela, it would be tantamount to recognizing the Maduro regime itself,” the official said. “This would be contrary to the Biden-Harris administration’s firm policy supporting the people of Venezuela.”).

Background

The Maduro government in Venezuela is viewed as illegitimate by the United States and dozens of other governments based on the 2013 election. The U.S. has recognized Juan Guaido as the interim President and has imposed a series of sanctions on Venezuela and the Maduro government. While the sanctions were imposed during the Trump Administration, no changes have yet occurred in the Biden Administration. A 2020 write-up from the State Department describes the problems and justifications for the sanctions. See U.S. Department of State, U.S. Relations With Venezuela, Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, July 6, 2020, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-venezuela/. Much of the fact sheet is copied below.

U.S.-VENEZUELA RELATIONS

“The United States recognizes Interim President Juan Guaido and considers the Venezuelan National Assembly, which he currently leads, to be the only legitimate federal institution, according to the Venezuelan Constitution. Nearly sixty other countries have joined in this recognition.

“The United States works with Interim President Juan Guaido and his team on a number of areas of mutual concern, including humanitarian and migration issues, health issues, security, anti-narcotrafficking initiatives, and reestablishment of the rule of law. The United States proposed a Democratic Transition Framework in 2020 as a guide to help Venezuelan society achieve a peaceful, democratic transition. Venezuela’s previous presidents, the late Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) and Nicolas Maduro (2013-2019), defined themselves in large part through their opposition to the United States, regularly criticizing and sowing disinformation about the U.S. government, its policies, and its relations with Latin America. Maduro, who was not reelected via free and fair elections, clings to power through the use of force. His policies are marked by authoritarianism, intolerance for dissent, and violent and systematic repression of human rights and fundamental freedoms – including the use of torture, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, and the holding of more than 400 prisoners of conscience. Maduro has been sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and in 2020 the Department of Justice charged him with offenses related to narco-terrorism and drug trafficking The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) posted a $15-million reward for information to bring him to justice. The Maduro regime’s irresponsible intervention in the economy has facilitated widespread corruption and stoked hyperinflation leading to negative economic growth and a humanitarian crisis, including food, energy, and water shortages, in a country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

“U.S. Assistance to Venezuela

“Through its assistance to the legitimate Guaido Interim Government and democratic organizations within and outside Venezuela, the United States supports the protection of human rights, the promotion of civil society, the strengthening of democratic institutions, and transparency and accountability in the country. From Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 to 2019, the United States has committed approximately $58.6million in bilateral democracy assistance to Venezuela. Assistance to Venezuela is subject to a number of restrictions, including those under Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-228) (the so-called Drug Majors restriction), the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and restrictions contained in the annual appropriations laws

“Since 2005, the President has determined annually that Venezuela, and more recently the illegitimate Maduro regime, has “failed demonstrably” to adhere to its drug control obligations under international counternarcotics agreements. The President has issued a national interest waiver to enable certain assistance programs vital to the national interests of the United States, such as human rights and civil society programs, to continue.

“Pursuant to Section 40A of the AECA, since 2006 the Department of State has determined annually that Venezuela was “not cooperating fully” with U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Under this provision, defense articles and services may not be sold or licensed for export to Venezuela during the relevant fiscal year.

“U.S. Assistance in Response to the Venezuela Regional Crisis

“The United States is answering Interim President Guaido’s call to help the people of Venezuela cope with severe food, water, energy, and medicine shortages. Since FY 2017, the United States has provided more than $856 million in assistance to support the response to the crisis inside Venezuela and the region, which includes $611 million in humanitarian assistance and $245 million in economic and development assistance. The United States is the single largest donor to the combat the crisis, and supports sixteen countries hosting Venezuelan refugees. USG-provided humanitarian assistance addresses critical life-saving needs, including food and nutrition, water, sanitation, hygiene and health, and temporary shelter. Our development assistance is helping countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean meet longer term needs, such as education deficits, caused by the man-made regional crisis.

“Bilateral Economic Relations

“Before the United States suspended diplomatic operations in Venezuela, the United States was Venezuela’s largest trading partner. Bilateral trade in goods between both countries reached $3.2 billion in 2019. U.S. goods exports to Venezuela totaled $1.2 billion in 2019. U.S. imports from Venezuela totaled $1.9 billion. U.S. exports to Venezuela have historically included petroleum and refined petroleum products, machinery, organic chemicals, and agricultural products. Crude oil dominated U.S. imports from Venezuela, which was one of the top five suppliers of foreign oil to the United States. In early 2019, imports of Venezuelan crude oil averaged roughly 500,000 barrels per day, but sanctions imposed by the United States have now cut this to zero. Previously, U.S. foreign direct investment in Venezuela was concentrated largely in the petroleum sector, but sanctions, coupled with the poor business environment, have significantly reduced these investment.

“Hyperinflation, state intervention in the economy including expropriations, macroeconomic distortions, physical insecurity, corruption, violations of labor rights, and a volatile regulatory framework make Venezuela an extremely challenging climate for U.S. and multinational companies. A complex foreign exchange system, capital controls, and the lack of dollars, coupled with increasing sanctions from the United States and other countries, have prevented firms from repatriating their earnings out of Venezuela and importing industrial inputs and finished goods into Venezuela. Lack of access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have compelled many U.S. and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations.

“Since 2017, the United States has made over 300 Venezuelan-related designations, pursuant to various Executive Orders (E.O.), including under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Designations include former President

“Maduro and those involved in public corruption and undermining democracy under E.O. 13692 (Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela) issued by the President in March 2015 and E.O. 13850 (Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela) issued by the President in November 2018, each as amended. Since 2017, the Department of Treasury has designated two individuals for involvement in narcotrafficking under the Kingpin Act, including former Vice President (and nominal Minister of Oil) Tareck El Aissami.

“Additionally, E.O. 13850, in conjunction with determinations made by the Secretary of the Treasury, authorizes sanctions against persons determined to be operating in the gold, oil, financial, and defense and security sectors of the Venezuelan economy and was the basis for the January 2019 designation of Venezuelan national oil company Petreoleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA). The Central Bank of Venezuela is also designated under E.O. 13850.

“On August 5, 2019, the President signed E.O. 13884 which blocks all property and interests in property of the Government of Venezuela that are in the United States or that are within the possession or control of any United States person. In conjunction with E.O. 13884, Treasury also issued or , including those that authorize, among other things, transactions with Guaido and the National Assembly, activities for the official business of certain international organizations, and activities NGOs undertake to support humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs in Venezuela.

“For additional information about the Venezuela sanctions program, please visit the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) website.

“On March 26, 2020, the Department of Justice charged former President Maduro and 14 other current and former Venezuelan officials, including his vice president for the economy, his Minister of Defense, and the Chief Supreme Court Justice with offenses related to narco-terrorism, corruption, and drug trafficking, and other criminal charges.

“Venezuela’s Membership in International Organizations

“Venezuela and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, Organization of American States, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Monetary Fund, Interpol, World Bank, World Trade Organization and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

“Venezuela is a founding member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), and PetroCaribe. Venezuela is also a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, , the G-15, the G-24, and the G-77. On August 5, 2017 Venezuela was indefinitely suspended from Southern Common Market (Mercosur).

“With the recognition of Juan Guaido as interim President by 57 countries, Venezuela’s participation or representation in some of these organizations has come under debate.

“On April 26, 2017, Maduro announced Venezuela would withdraw from the Organization of American States (OAS), a process that requires two years. This decision was reversed by Interim President Guaido and the National Assembly. On January 10, 2019, the OAS Permanent Council voted not to recognize the second term of former President Nicolas Maduro and on April 9, 2019 the OAS Permanent Council approved a resolution to accept interim President Guaido’s nominee Gustavo Tarre as Venezuela’s representative to the Permanent Council on April 9.

“The interim Guaido government is also an active member of the Lima Group, an important group of likeminded nations founded in 2017 to facilitate regional coordination in the pursuit of a democratic resolution to the Venezuela crisis.

“On March 15, 2019, the IDB approved a resolution recognizing Guaido’s representative, Ricardo Hausmann. The current representative is Alejandro Plaz.

“Bilateral Representation

“On March 12, 2019, the United States suspended embassy operations in Caracas. The United States maintains formal diplomatic relations with Venezuela and the Guaido interim government through its accredited Ambassador to the United States.

“On August 28, 2019, the Department of State announced the opening of the Venezuela Affairs Unit (VAU). The VAU is the interim diplomatic office of the U.S. Government to Venezuela, located at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia. It continues the U.S. mission to the legitimate Government of Venezuela and to the Venezuelan people.”

While the Biden Administration is reviewing its approach to Venezuela and some in the Democratic party have questioned the sanction program in terms of effectiveness, the sanctions remain in place as of March 28, 2021. See, e.g., White House Briefing Room, Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on Venezuela, March 08, 2021,https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/03/08/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-venezuela/; PBS News Hour, Democrats pressure Biden to review U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, March 23, 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-pressure-biden-to-review-u-s-sanctions-on-venezuela.

WTO history of the dispute

Venezuela requested consultations with the United States in late December 2018. See UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES, REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY VENEZUELA (28 December 2018), WT/DS574/1, G/L/1289, S/L/420, 8 January 2019.

The United States refused the request for consultations. Venezuela requested a panel on 14 March 2019. See UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY VENEZUELA, WT/DS574/2, 15 March 2019.

The request was included in the draft agenda for the DSB meeting of March 26, 2019. See Dispute Settlement Body, 26 March 2019, Proposed Agenda, WT/DSB/W/641, 22 March 2019 (agenda item 6, “UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES, A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY VENEZUELA (WT/DS574/2)”).

The U.S. objected to the inclusion of the Venezuelan request on the agenda. No DSB meeting was held on March 26, 2019. Venezuela agreed to withdraw its request, and the DSB meeting was rescheduled for April 26, 2019. See Dispute Settlement Body, 26 April 2019, Proposed Agenda, WT/DSB/W/643, 24 April 2019.

The minutes of the April 26, 2019 DSB meeting included the following statement ahead of the adoption of the agenda.

“Prior to the adoption of the Agenda, the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that his delegation wished to make a short statement for the record to the effect that Venezuela was not asking to modify the proposed Agenda of the present meeting to request an inclusion of an item. However, Venezuela wished to reserve its right to do so at any future DSB meeting. Subsequently, Japan said that it wished to include on the proposed Agenda an item under “Other Business” regarding its communication contained in Job/DSB/3. The Agenda was adopted as amended. Following the adoption of the Agenda, the representative of Peru, speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama and Paraguay said that the members of the Lima Group supported the functioning of the DSB at the present meeting.
However, their Governments wished to indicate that they did not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro’s regime nor that of its representatives. The representative of Venezuela said that the DSB was not the appropriate forum to discuss this matter. The representative of the Russian Federation said that her country supported the legitimate government of Nicolás Maduro and underlined that the WTO was not the appropriate international forum vested with the authority to discuss issues raised by the members of the Lima Group.” Dispute Settlement Body, 26 April 2019, MINUTES OF MEETING HELD, WT/DSB/M/428
25 June 2019, page 1.

March 26, 2021 DSB Meeting

Thus, based on the history of U.S. concerns with the Maduro government in Venezuela, it was hardly surprising that the United States would block inclusion of the request for a panel from the agenda this past Friday. Press accounts report that Peru, Brazil and Colombia supported the U.S. position and that the Russian Federation and Cuba supported Venezuela. See, e.g., Reuters, U.S. blocks Venezuela bid to seek WTO review of sanctions, March 26, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-wto-usa-venezuela/u-s-blocks-venezuela-bid-to-seek-wto-review-of-sanctions-idUSKBN2BI1ZT.

The EU made a statement at the truncated meeting which is copied below. See Permanent Mission of the European Union to the World Trade Organization (WTO), EU Statement at the Regular meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), 26 March 2021, https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/world-trade-organization-wto/95717/eu-statement-regular-meeting-dispute-settlement-body-dsb-26-march-2021_en.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:

“If the EU understands correctly, the US is not ready to accept this panel request by Venezuela as being valid, as it was submitted by a government which the US no longer recognises as the legitimate government representing Venezuela.

“In fact, in this case, the EU would have expected the US to rely on the security exceptions in Article XXI of the GATT and Article XIVbis of the GATS for justifying any departures from basic GATT and GATS provisions that may lie in the measures taken against Venezuela. 

Indeed, we note that the United States measures at issue appear justified by the security exceptions, so the challenge at issue cannot in any event succeed.

“All this being said, the EU has to react for systemic reasons and express its concern at the prospect of the DSB being prevented from holding its meeting on all items of today’s agenda simply because that agenda is not adopted. 

“There is a longstanding and widely recognised principle that DSB agendas cannot be blocked to the extent that they include items governed by negative consensus. This includes first panel requests (governed by consensus), since they are a necessary pre-condition to a second panel request. This principle is of utmost importance because the binding nature of WTO dispute settlement rests on it. 

“That said, the EU expects this meeting to be suspended now, as a result of the US objection to the agenda adoption. This should allow the Chairperson and the WTO Members most involved to consult in search of a solution. The EU hopes that these efforts will rapidly yield a solution, so that this meeting can continue and the DSB discharge the important duties with which it is entrusted.”

Conclusion

Friday’s events at the Dispute Settlement Body meeting were not surprising once the request for a panel had been filed by Venezuela. What is surprising is the Maduro government’s effort to re-raise a matter that had no possibility of being considered in light of the well understood U.S. position (a position agreed to by many WTO Members).

WTO Members have historically shown an inability to evaluate disputes they pursue from the vantage point of whether the result desired is at all politically possible for the Member whose action is being challenged. Yet pursuing disputes that cannot be resolved through the dispute settlement system is a disservice to the WTO and to the proper functioning of the Dispute Settlement Body. The Maduro government dispute with the United States first and foremost is a question of the legitimacy of the Maduro government and its refusal to transfer power to the interim President. No WTO dispute will help resolve the underlying dispute. Besides the question raised by the United States (blocking requests from entities which are not the true representatives of the people), getting rid of the request properly reflects the political realities of the underlying dispute.

U.S. Section 301 investigations on digital services taxes by trading partners — USTR seeks public comment on proposed tariffs in six of ten investigations and terminates investigations on Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union and Indonesia

While the Biden Administration is looking to develop agreed international taxation rules for digital services through the OECD/G20 Integrated Framework process, on Friday, March 26, 2021, USTR Katherine Tai announced next steps to maintain options while negotiations at the OECD continue. See USTR, USTR Announces Next Steps of Section 301 Digital Services Taxes Investigations, March 26, 2021, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2021/march/ustr-announces-next-steps-section-301-digital-services-taxes-investigations. Part of the press release is copied below.

Six countries remain subject to potential action while broader international tax negotiations continue

“WASHINGTON – The United States Trade Representative (USTR) today announced the next steps in its Section 301 investigations of Digital Service Taxes (DSTs) adopted or under consideration by ten U.S. trading partners.  In January, USTR found that the DSTs adopted by Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom were subject to action under Section 301 because they discriminated against U.S. digital companies, were inconsistent with principles of international taxation, and burdened U.S. companies.  USTR is proceeding with the public notice and comment process on possible trade actions to preserve procedural options before the conclusion of the statutory one-year time period for completing the investigations.
  
“’The United States is committed to working with its trading partners to resolve its concerns with digital services taxes, and to addressing broader issues of international taxation,’ said Ambassador Katherine Tai.  ‘The United States remains committed to reaching an international consensus through the OECD process on international tax issues.  However, until such a consensus is reached, we will maintain our options under the Section 301 process, including, if necessary, the imposition of tariffs.’

“The remaining four jurisdictions – Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, and Indonesia – have not adopted or not implemented the DSTs under consideration when the investigations were initiated.  Accordingly, USTR is terminating these four investigations without further proceedings.  If any of these jurisdictions proceeds to adopt or implement a DST, USTR may initiate new investigations.” 

In prior posts, I have reviewed the investigations and reports released on the six investigations and on the French investigation which was completed earlier but where tariffs were postponed in mid-January 2021. See January 15, 2021, U.S. Section 301 investigations on digital services taxes by trading partners – USTR releases additional reports on January 14, 2021, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/15/u-s-section-301-investigations-on-digital-service-taxes-by-trading-partners-ustr-releases-additional-reports-on-january-14-2021/ (release of reports on Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom); January 8, 2021, U.S. Section 301 investigations on digital service taxes by trading partners – an update, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/08/u-s-section-301-investigations-on-digital-service-taxes-by-trading-partners-an-update/ (release of reports on India, Italy and Turkey); June 3, 2020, Digital Services Taxes – New U.S. Section 301 Investigations on Nine Countries and the European Union, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/06/03/digital-services-taxes-new-u-s-section-301-investigations-on-nine-countries-and-the-european-union/

Yesterday’s USTR press release included links to the Federal Register notices that will appear presumably next week. Each notice provides a timeline for written comments and a virtual hearing as well as the proposed list of products that could be imposed.

For example, the Federal Register notice on Austria states that “In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent ad valorem on an aggregate level of trade that would collect duties on goods of Austria in the range of the amount of the DST that Austria is expected to collect from U.S. companies. Initial estimates indicate that the value of the DST payable by U.S.-based company groups to Austria will be up to approximately $45 million per year. USTR further proposes that the goods of Austria subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as
specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.” Similar language appears in each of the notices with the estimated taxes on U.S. digital services estimated at $55 million per year for India, $140 million for Italy, $155 million for Spain, $160 million for Turkey, $325 million for the United Kingdom. At an ad valorem additional duty of 25%, this means that if there is not a resolution to the issues at the OECD, duties could be applied by the U.S. on $180 million of goods from Austria, $220 million from India, $560 million from Italy, $620 million from Spain, $640 million from Turkey and $1.3 billion from the United Kingdom. Products listed in the Annex are the products from which USTR is proposing the U.S. would choose for additional duties.

All Federal Register notices seek comments on a range of issues. The language from the Turkey notice is copied below and is similar to that in each of the other five Federal Register notices.

III. Request for Public Comments

“In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.

“USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outline above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:

“• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from Turkey’s DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.

“• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.

“• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.

“• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.

“In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters address specifically whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of Turkey’s acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.

“Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the Turkey DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.

“To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 14, 2021 for the Turkey DST hearing.”

All six notices provide the dates for requesting to appear, for submitting comments and for the hearing. The dates from the notices are copied below.

Austria notice

DATES:
April 21, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit requests to appear at a hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.

April 30, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments by this date.

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions.

May 10, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit multi-jurisdictional hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

May 11, 2021 at 9:30 am: Virtual hearing on Austria DST proposed action.

May 18, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit Austria DST hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

India notice

DATES:
April 21, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit requests to appear at a hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.

April 30, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments by this date.

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions.

May 10, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit multi-jurisdictional hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

May 10, 2021 at 9:30 am: Virtual hearing on India DST proposed action.

May 17, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit India DST hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

Italy notice

DATES:
April 21, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit requests to appear at a hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.

April 30, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments by this date.

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions.

May 5, 2021 at 9:30 am: Virtual hearing on Italy DST proposed action.

May 10, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit multi-jurisdictional hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

May 12, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit Italy DST hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

Spain notice

DATES:
April 21, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit requests to appear at a hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.

April 30, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments by this date.

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions.

May 6, 2021 at 9:30 a.: Virtual hearing on Spain DST proposed action.

May 10, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit multi-jurisdictional hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

May 13, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit Spain DST hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

Turkey notice

DATES:
April 21, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit requests to appear at a hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.

April 30, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments by this date.

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions.

May 7, 2021 at 9:30 am: Virtual hearing on Turkey DST proposed action.

May 10, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit multi-jurisdictional hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

May 14, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit Turkey DST hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

United Kingdom notice

DATES:
April 21, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit requests to appear at a hearing, along with a summary of the testimony, by this date.

April 30, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments by this date.

May 3, 2021: Multi-jurisdictional virtual hearing on proposed actions.

May 4, 2021 at 9:30 a.m.: Virtual hearing on the United Kingdom DST proposed action.

May 10, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit multi-jurisdictional hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

May 11, 2021: To be assured of consideration, submit the United Kingdom DST hearing rebuttal comments by this date.

The Federal Register notices issued by USTR on the six countries and the notice on terminating 301 investigations on Brazil, Czech Republic, European Union and Indonesia are embedded below and will appear in the Federal Register in the next week or so.

FRNAustria

FRNIndia

FRNItaly

FRNSpain

FRNTurkey

FRNUK

FRNDSTterminations

Conclusion

The Biden Administration has rejoined the effort to find an acceptable solution to the digital services tax issue within the OECD/G20 Integrated Framework and has reportedly made a major concession to facilitate movement in the talks. See Wall Street Journal, Yellen Removes Obstacle to Global Corporate-Tax Deal, February 26, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/yellen-removes-obstacle-to-global-corporate-tax-deal-11614363591 (“Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Friday that the U.S. would no longer insist on a “safe harbor” under which some elements of the tax rules would be optional. The idea, proposed in late 2019 by her predecessor, Steven Mnuchin, drew objections from European counterparts, though talks on how it would work never advanced very far.”).

At the same time, the U.S. has been and remains concerned about what it views as efforts by major trading partners to impose discriminatory taxes on major U.S. digital services companies. There were many U.S. Senators who expresssed deep concerns with the practices of trading partners in this area during Ambassador Tai’s confirmation hearing to become USTR. The action taken yesterday by USTR reflects the willingness of the Biden Administration to be prepared to impose tariffs on products from selected countries where investigations have resulted in previously released reports that identified significant problems under U.S. law. At the same time, USTR has made clear that the Administration’s preferred approach is through the OECD/G20 Integrated Framework process. And USTR has terminated the remaining four investigations where reports were not released.

All of the above indicate that the U.S. will put primary focus on the ongoing OECD negotiations while preserving options under U.S. law on investigations that had proceeded to a determination by holding public hearings and considering potential products on which to impose additional tariffs. USTR’s actions should generally be acceptable to the U.S. Congress while also letting the OECD negotiations play out in the coming months while preserving options if a negotiated outcome proves illusive.

Global vaccinations for COVID-19 — continued supply chain and production issues and a new wave of infections in many countries delay greater ramp up for some until late in the second quarter of 2021

The world has witnessed the unprecedented development of a number of vaccines in record time to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The development has been the result of widespread cooperation in sharing information and the funding in part by governments and early orders for hundreds of millions of doses if vaccines proved efficacious and safe. In roughly one year since the virus was declared a pandemic by the WHO, individual vaccines have been produced and authorized by one or more governments (some by as many as 70 along with WHO approval).

According to the Financial Times COVID-19 vaccine tracker, as of March 25, nearly 490 million vaccine shots have been administered around the world (based on data from 166 locations). See Financial Times, Covid-19 vaccine tracker: the global race to vaccinate, 25 March 2021, https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker/?areas=gbr&areas=isr&areas=usa&areas=eue&cumulative=1&populationAdjusted=1. The companies with approved vaccines have been ramping up production at their own and at licensed facilities in other countries. Because companies are racing to put in place 3-4 times the global capacity for all vaccines (3.5 billion doses) to produce COVID-19 vaccines (10-14 billion doses by the end of 2021) and because there are complex supply chains and production processes for the new vaccines, there have been various delays which have occurred both at manufacturers and at suppliers. This has been true in the U.S., in the EU, in India and other producing countries. While countries and producers are working on solutions, shortages of certain materials exist and can reduce production of finished vaccines globally.

While the WHO, GAVI, CEPI and UNICEF have set up COVAX to get vaccines to a total of 192 countries, including 92 low- and middle-income countries where materials will be supplied at discounted prices or for free and have a target of two billion doses to participating countries in 2021, there is an early reliance on AstraZeneca’s vaccine whether produced by AstraZeneca or through license by the Serum Institute (SII) in India, the world’s largest vaccine producer.

Unfortunately, many countries are going through a new wave of COVID-19 infections which puts pressure on governments to secure sufficient supplies to address domestic demand. See, e.g., European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, COVID-19 situation update worldwide, as of week 11, updated 25 March 2021, https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases (shows total new reported infections going up globally for the fourth week after a sharp decline after New Year’s). Countries showing large numbers of cases over the last two weeks (whether increases or decreases) include Ethiopia (21,227), Kenya (12,083), Libya (12,852), South Africa (17,646), Argentina (91,023), Brazil (995,861), Canada (48,021), Chile (77,561), Colombia (63,417), Ecuador (18,223), Mexico (66,683), Paraguay (26,252), Peru (98,323), United States (830,346), Uruguay (19,512), Bangladesh (19,938), India (416,683), Indonesia (80,522), Iran (119,383), Iraq (67,344), Jordan (109,594), Lebanon (43,964), Pakistan (38,371), Philippines 969,382), United Arab Emirates (29,506), Austria (39,842), Belgium (50,670), Bulgaria (43,115), Czechia (142,042), Estonia (20211), France (378,370), Germany (162,032), Greece (32,005), Hungary (111,929), Italy (308,890), Moldova (19,82), Netherlands (83,797), Poland (272,046), Romania (70,295), Russian Federation (133,24), Serbia (65,689), Spain (67,833), Sweden (61,666), Turkey (232,705), Ukraine (147,456), United Kingdom (78,063). While many countries do not produce COVID-19 vaccines, the list of countries includes many in the EU as well as Brazil, the United States and India. Brazil’s production of COVID-19 vaccines is not expected to start until May. Below I review developments on vaccination roll-outs in the United States, the European Union and India.

Vaccination roll-out in the U.S., EU and India — three important COVID-19 vaccination production areas

Under the Biden Administration, the United States has drastically improved its performance on COVID-19 vaccinations with 129.3 million vaccinations given by March 24 and with the President announcing his Administration’s revised goal of 200 million shots in arms in his first 100 days in office (April 29). See Financial Times, Biden doubles vaccine goal to 200m in first 100 days, 25 March 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/a1accbdf-0010-426c-9442-feb73b5c8a1d. While the U.S. focus is on getting the U.S. population vaccinated as the first priority, the U.S. has agreed to “loan” 1.5 million doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine to Canada and 2.5 million doses to Mexico. The U.S., following a leader’s remote meeting of the Quad (U.S., Japan, India, Australia), agreed to work with the other Quad partners to produce one billion doses in India of a vaccine by the end of 2022 from a U.S. company that would be paid for by Japan and the U.S. and would receive distribution support from Australia for countries in the Indo-Pacific region. See March 12, 2021, COVID-19 vaccines – U.S., Japan, India and Australia agree to one billion doses for Indo-Pacific countries, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/12/covid-19-vaccines-u-s-japan-india-and-australia-agree-to-one-billion-doses-for-indo-pacific-countries/.

The European Union, a major producing location for COVID-19 vaccines and various inputs and a major exporter, has had rollout problems flowing from production problems at AstraZeneca’s EU facilities, concerns by many EU members on whether the vaccine from AstraZeneca was safe (small number of blot clot problems in those vaccinated) and other issues. See New York Times, Where Europe Went Wrong in Its Vaccine Rollout, and Why, March 20, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/world/europe/europe-vaccine-rollout-astrazeneca.html; Financial Times, Nordic nations hold off on AstraZeneca jab as scientists probe safety, 21 March 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/0ef3a623-f3a2-4e76-afbd-94a915b24ad5. With vaccination rates in the EU far behind the U.K. and the U.S. and a number of other countries, this has led to significant internal pressures to ensure that manufacturers were honoring contracts with the EU and has led to two temporary regulations (and an extension) giving EU members authority to stop exports outside of the EU (and excluding the shipments to COVAX low-and middle-income countries). See March 5, 2021, COVID-19 vaccines — France supports Italy’s blockage of a shipment to Australia; while Australia has asked the EU to permit the shipment, Australia will have its own production of AstraZeneca product by the end of March, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/05/covid-19-vaccines-france-supports-italys-blockage-of-a-shipment-to-australia-while-australia-has-asked-the-eu-to-permit-the-shipment-australia-will-have-its-own-production-of-astrazeneca-produc/; European Commission, Commission strengthens transparency and authorisation mechanism for exports of COVID-19 vaccines, 24 March 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1352; European Commission, 24.3.2021 C(2021) 2081 final COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) …/… of 24.3.2021, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1352; European Commission, Commission extends transparency and authorisation mechanism for exports of COVID-19 vaccines, 11 March 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_1121. Australia had a shipment stopped by Italy and the EC has been raising concerns in the United Kingdom.

In recent days, Indian producer Serum Institute has notified a number of customers that their orders would be delayed several months. GAVI COVAX has been notified as well, with 40 million doses in April and 50 million in May apparently unlikely to ship. Press articles attribute the delays to the needs within India, though SII has suggested delays are also due to availability issues on certain inputs. The Indian government claims it is simply adjusting schedules in light of internal needs and is not imposing an export ban per se. See, e.g., BBC News, India coronavirus: Why have vaccine exports been suspended?, 25 March 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55571793; Wall Street Journal, India Suspends Covid-19 Vaccine Exports to Focus on Domestic Immunization, March 25, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-suspends-covid-19-vaccine-exports-to-focus-on-domestic-immunization-11616690859#:~:text=An%20Indian%20government%20official%20said,of%20the%20government’s%20vaccine%20program.&text=On%20Tuesday%2C%20the%20government%20said,to%20those%20older%20than%2045; Times of India, India has not banned Covid-19 vaccine exports, 25 March 2021, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-has-not-banned-covid-19-vaccine-exports-sources/articleshow/81693010.cms.

Conclusion

Much of the anticipated ramp up of COVID-19 vaccine production will be happening over the coming months, such that there should be dramatically greater vaccine availability in the coming months. That doesn’t help governments or populations waiting for vaccines. or that are going through a significant ramp up in infections. The pharmaceutical industry and major groups got together earlier this month to explore where the bottlenecks are in ramping up production. See March 12, 2021, The 8-9 March  “Global C19 Vaccine Supply Chain and Manufacturing Summit”, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/12/the-8-9-march-global-c19-vaccine-supply-chain-and-manufacturing-summit-efforts-to-ramp-up-production/ It is unclear the extent to which governments and industry are working together to solve bottlenecks in supply, to facilitate production ramp up, share experiences in reusing safely some critical materials that are in short supply, etc. During these critical months, greater cooperation in solving problems and facilitating expansion of production is needed and hopefully is occurring. Export restrictions have and will occur under various guises, reflecting internal political pressures. In the coming months and certainly by the third quarter of 2021, there should be large volumes of vaccine doses above and beyond what has been contracted by COVAX that will be available for use around the world. Time is obviously of the essence. Cooperation to solve supply chain bottlenecks and speed ramp-ups is the best short term option for speeding getting past the pandemic globally.

.

When human rights violations create trade distortions — the case of China’s treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang

Earlier this week, the EU added a series of individuals and companies to its sanctions list including Chinese officials and entities involved in the alleged extreme human rights abuses of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, as well as others in Russia, Libya and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. See European Council, EU imposes further sanctions over serious violations of human rights around the world, 22 March 2021, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/03/22/eu-imposes-further-sanctions-over-serious-violations-of-human-rights-around-the-world/; Official Journal of the European Union, L 99 I, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/478 of 22 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses, Vol. 64, pages 1-12, 22 March 2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2021:099I:FULL&from=EN. The Official Journal regulation has as one of the bases of concern for a number of countries where individuals or entities are included on the sanctions list the following, “The Union remains deeply concerned about serious human rights violations and abuses in different parts of the world, such as torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances or systematic use of forced labour committed by individuals and entities in China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Libya, Eritrea, South Sudan and Russia.” The regulation includes a page per person/entity being added. Some of the description of why WANG Junzheng has been added to the list is copied below.

“As Party Secretary and Political commissar of the XPCC since 2020, Wang Junzheng is involved in overseeing all policies implemented by the XPCC. In this position, he is responsible for serious human rights violations in China, in particular large-scale arbitrary detentions and degrading treatment inflicted upon Uyghurs and people from other Muslim ethnic minorities, as well as systematic violations of their freedom of religion or belief, linked, inter alia, to the XPCC’s implementation of a large-scale surveillance, detention and indoctrination programme targeting Uyghurs and people from other Muslim ethnic minorities.

“He is also responsible for the XPCC’s systematic use of Uyghurs and people from other Muslim ethnic minorities as a forced workforce, in particular in cotton fields. As Deputy Secretary of the Party Committee of the XUAR since 2020, Wang Junzheng is involved in overseeing all the security policies implemented in Xinjiang, including the aforementioned programme targeting Uyghurs and people from other Muslim ethnic minorities. As Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee of the XUAR (February 2019 to September 2020), Wang Junzheng was responsible for maintaining internal security and law enforcement in the XUAR. As such, he held a key political position in charge of overseeing and implementing the aforementioned programme.”

On the same day, the United States, United Kingdom and Canada issued a joint statement announcing sanctions on individuals and/or an entity in China involved with the alleged human rights abuses of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. See U.S. Department of State press release, Joint Statement on Xinjiang, March 22, 2021, https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-xinjiang/. The body of the joint message is copied below.

“We, the Foreign Ministers of Canada and the United Kingdom, and the United States Secretary of State, are united in our deep and ongoing concern regarding China’s human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang. The evidence, including from the Chinese Government’s own documents, satellite imagery, and eyewitness testimony is overwhelming. China’s extensive program of repression includes severe restrictions on religious freedoms, the use of forced labour, mass detention in internment camps, forced sterilisations, and the concerted destruction of Uyghur heritage.

“Today, we have taken coordinated action on measures, in parallel to measures by the European Union, that send a clear message about the human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang. We are united in calling for China to end its repressive practices against Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang, and to release those arbitrarily detained.

“We underline the importance of transparency and accountability and call on China to grant the international community, including independent investigators from the United Nations, journalists, and foreign diplomats, unhindered access to Xinjiang.

“We will continue to stand together to shine a spotlight on China’s human rights violations. We stand united and call for justice for those suffering in Xinjiang.”

Australia and New Zealand, while not imposing sanctions themselves, added their voices of concern over the alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang of the Uyghurs. See Minister of Foreign Affairs Australia, Joint statement on Human Rights Abuses in Xinjiang, 23 March 2021, https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/media-release/joint-statement-human-rights-abuses-xinjiang. The Joint Statement is copied below.

“The Australian and New Zealand Governments today reiterate their grave concerns about the growing number of credible reports of severe human rights abuses against ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

“In particular, there is clear evidence of severe human rights abuses that include restrictions on freedom of religion, mass surveillance, large-scale extra-judicial detentions, as well as forced labour and forced birth control, including sterilisation.

“Australia and New Zealand welcome the measures announced overnight by Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. We share these countries’ deep concerns, which are held across the Australian and New Zealand communities.

“Since 2018, when reports began to emerge about the detention camps in Xinjiang, Australia and New Zealand have consistently called on China in the United Nations to respect the human rights of the Uighur people, and other religious and ethnic minorities.

“Today, we underscore the importance of transparency and accountability, and reiterate our call on China to grant meaningful and unfettered access to Xinjiang for United Nations experts, and other independent observers.”

While China argues that their treatment of the Uyghurs is an internal matter, the allegations of serious human rights abuses have raised widespread international condemnation and increasing use of sanctions. The sanctions, however, typically are limited to freezing assets (if any) of individuals or entities in the sanctioning country, banning travel to the country imposing the sanctioning, etc.

Trade Implications

While allegations of human rights violations do not necessarily carry trade distortion implications, the case of the forced labor of Uighurs in Xinjiang clearly does. Xinjiang produces some 80% of the cotton grown in China, much of it produced by forced labor according to reports. As China is a major producer of textile and apparel products and a major exporter of the same, the distortions in trade flows should be obvious. Foreign cotton will have trouble competing in China with cotton produced with forced labor. Garment producers who don’t use the Chinese cotton will face distortions as competing against garments where a significant input has been obtained at artificially low prices. Some countries (e.g., the United States and Canada) have laws which permit them to prevent imports of products made with forced labor, although the breadth of the actions taken to date are typically quite limited.

In prior posts, I looked at the large number of products produced around the world with forced labor or with child labor and also looked specifically at the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs reviewing a number of publications and reports. See Child labor and forced labor in cotton production — is there a current WTO mandate to identify and quantify the distortive effects?, January 25, 2021, ttps://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/25/child-labor-and-forced-labor-in-cotton-production-is-there-a-current-wto-mandate-to-identify-and-quantify-the-distortive-effects/ ; Forced labor and child labor — a continued major distortion in international trade for some products, January 24, 2021, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/24/forced-labor-and-child-labor-a-continued-major-distortion-in-international-trade-for-some-products/.

To ramp up pressure on China to reform its treatment of the Uyghurs, the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all other countries concerned about the human rights should coordinate a broad-based denial of imports from China or from other countries where cotton from Xinjiang is part of the product until such time as the treatment of the Uyghurs has been corrected.

Seafood obtained from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing — U.S. International Trade Commission report on estimated imports into the U.S.

For twenty years, Members of the World Trade Organization have been negotiating disciplines on fisheries subsidies to help curb illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). Achieving an agreement is critical to meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14.6. See, e.g., WTO, WTO members hold February cluster of meetings for fisheries subsidies negotiations, 24 February 2021, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/fish_24feb21_e.htm. The WTO Members had hoped to conclude negotiations in 2020 and are working to conclude the negotiations by the 12th Ministerial Conference, now scheduled for the week of November 29, 2021 in Geneva. See WTO, Twelfth Ministerial Conference to take place in Geneva in late 2021, 1 March 2021, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/minis_01mar21_e.htm.

On December 19, 2019, the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means submitted a letter to the U.S. International Trade Commission requesting an investigation into IUU fishing and its effects on the U.S. industry. The text of the request is copied below.

“We are writing today to request that the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) conduct an investigation of the potential economic effects on U.S. fishermen of competition with illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) seafood imports. IUU seafood includes products obtained in contravention of fisheries management regulations or in violation of labor laws. Trade in IUU seafood products includes not only IUU catch that is sent directly to end markets, but also IUU raw material inputs that are further processed into aquaculture feed or seafood products for human consumption.

“Up to 31 percent of the global catch of fish reportedly comes from IUU fishing, at an estimated value of more than $23 billion per year. IUU fishing contributes to the overexploitation of fish stocks, threatens the livelihoods of coastal communities, jeopardizes food security, and harms marine ecosystems. IUU fishing also creates unfair competition for U.S. fishermen as imports account for 90 percent of U.S. seafood consumption. China plays an enormous role in the global production and trade of seafood and is the largest seafood trade partner of the United States. China also has been ranked as worst among 152 coastal countries based on the prevalence of IUU fishing and the country’s response to it.

“To better understand the size, scope, supply chains, pricing pressures, and potential economic effects of this problem, we request that the US ITC conduct an investigation, and prepare a report, pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930. Based on available information, we request that the Commission’s report provide, to the extent practicable:

“• A review of the existing data and literature on the prevalence of IUU products in the U.S. import market, and an overview of international mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement to address IUU fishing;

“• A description of the size and structure of the U.S. commercial fishing industry;

“A description of major global producers of IUU products, including but not limited to China, and country practices related to IUU production and exports.

“• An analysis of the extent to which IUU product is imported into the United States, as well as major U.S. import sources and global supply chains of such products; and

“• A quantitative analysis of the economic impact of IUU imports on U.S. commercial fishermen and U.S. commercial fishing production, trade, and prices.

“We request that the Commission deliver the report by 12 months from the date of this letter. As we intend to make the report available to the public, we request that confidential business information not be included in the report. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

“Sincerely,

“Richard E. Neal, Chairman
“Earl Blumenauer, Chairman, Trade Subcommittee”

The U.S. International Trade Commission released its report,which is dated February 2021, last week. See USITC, Seafood Obtained via Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing: U.S. Imports and Economic Impact on U.S. Commercial Fisheries, Inv. 332-575, Publ. 5168 (February 2021). The request letter is included in the report at Annex A.

On March 18, 2021 Chairmen Neal and Blumenauer released a statement including statements from Oceana and from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). See U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, NEAL, BLUMENAUER STATEMENT ON THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION’S REPORT “SEAFOOD OBTAINED VIA ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED, AND UNREGULATED FISHING: U.S. IMPORTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ON U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES”, March 18, 2021, https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/neal-blumenauer-statement-us-international-trade-commission-s-report. The press release is copied below.

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. International Trade Commission released their findings pursuant to a Tariff Act of 1930 section 332 investigation requested by Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) on the economic impact of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) seafood, including the use of forced labor, on the U.S. fishing industry.  The report found that the U.S. imported $2.4 billion worth of illegal seafood in 2019 and that addressing the illegal imports would create U.S. jobs, protect U.S. consumers and benefit U.S. fishers by an estimated $60.8 million.

“’Far too much illegal seafood is making its way onto our dinner plates and more must be done,’ said Chairman Neal. ‘By building on what we fought to include in USMCA, enhancing the tracing of our seafood supply chains, and cracking down on IUU fishing practices, we can better protect our oceans and ultimately give Americans the peace of mind that they are eating safe, legal seafood.’

“’When people go to the grocery store, they want to know that the seafood is safe and legally caught, responsibly sourced, and honestly labeled. Unfortunately, too much illegal seafood is currently making its way into the country, undermining our hardworking U.S. fishing industry and putting consumers at risk,’ Blumenauer said. ‘It’s clear that we need stronger enforcement standards to protect individuals, workers, and fishing habitats.’

“Chairman Neal and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Blumenauer are joined by Oceana and WWF in recognizing the study.

“’Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing not only wreaks havoc on fisheries and ocean wildlife, but also undermines domestic fishers and seafood consumers. The United States has advanced programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, but it’s clear that more needs to be done. The U.S. must expand Seafood Import Monitoring Program to all seafood, trace fish from boat to plate and expand transparency of fishing to help stop IUU products from entering the U.S. and competing with legally sourced seafood,’ said Beth Lowell, Deputy Vice President of U.S. Campaigns at Oceana.

Michele Kuruc, Vice President of Ocean Policy at WWF noted that, ‘this report reminds us that the ramifications of illegal fishing go far beyond the health of our oceans. It depletes our oceans, fuels labor and human rights abuses, and leaves our domestic producers at an economic disadvantage. People are harmed, economies are hurt, and our oceans and planet are in peril.   Eradicating illegal fishing requires a whole of government approach, as our current definitions, processes and efforts have far-reaching limitations. The good news is we have the tools, but they need to be strengthened to get the job done.  The U.S. needs to expand the species covered by our current monitoring program. We need to track all imported species, not just a small group, to truly tackle this issue and protect our oceans, foster economic growth and empower people who rely on oceans for food and income.’”

Thus, the U.S., despite having some provisions to address IUU fishing, still accounts via imports for an estimated 10% of global IUU fishing ($2.4 billion of an estimated $23 billion global total).

The USITC Report

The U.S. International Trade Commission report is 468 pages including Annexes. The report is embedded below.

ITC-report-on-illegal-fishing

While many countries have some part of their marine capture or imports from other countries that are IUU, the USITC report focuses on certain countries and identifies the types of practices that are considered to result in marine capture being considered IUU.

“There are many fishing practices that can constitute an IUU violation. Often, a vessel may fish in an area where it is not authorized. Vessels may also fish during seasons in which particular fishing grounds are closed. IUU fishing also includes harvesting in excess of quotas set by fishery management authorities or misreporting the volume of landings to those authorities. Fishing with disallowed gear types or methods, or in violation of environmental restrictions such as those concerning bycatch, also constitute IUU fishing. Labor violations that have been widely documented in segments of the fishing industry include forced labor, human trafficking, child labor, and physical abuse of workers on board fishing vessels.” USITC Publ. 5168 at 11-12.

Below are some tables from the report which show the estimated volume of IUU imports from major sources of seafood imports into the United States and then some detail on the basis of IUU fishing from a subset of those countries. The tables are taken from pages 114, 115, 463, 14 and 15 of the USITC report respectively.

The USITC report covers a lot of ground and reviews existing literature and studies and provides its methodology for both estimating the share of imports that are IUU as well as the modeling used to estimate economic effects on domestic industry. It is clear that many countries contribute to the IUU problem. Some countries including the U.S. and the EU have tools available to deal with IUU imports and that such tools are viewed as helpful but not totally fit for purpose based on limited scope, at least in the United States.

Interest in the issue from the U.S. Congress and a focus of the Biden Administration on addressing both environmental- and labor- related issues implies that the U.S. will likely be looking for ways to beef up enforcement of the import monitoring program on seafood.

While the report doesn’t address fisheries subsidies, the report should nonetheless be helpful to WTO Members engaged in the fisheries subsidies negotiations. The report adds dimension to the importance of WTO Members reaching an ambitious agreement on fisheries subsidies as the challenges of IUU fishing are not only environmental in nature but also go to fairness in competition.

The U.S.-China Phase 1 Trade Agreement under the Biden Administration

The Biden Administration’s U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai during her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and in written answers to questions from Senators was asked many questions about the China trade relationship and the myriad problems U.S. companies have faced in dealing with China or with Chinese imports into the U.S.. Ms. Tai noted in many answers that the “Biden-Harris Administration is engaged in a review of the policies in place to respond to China’s coercive and unfair trade practices * * *. I understand that a comprehensive strategy to confront the China challenge will be formulated based on that review.” Answer to Question 15 from Ranking Member Crapo (page 8).

Among the dozens of questions she received on China, Ms. Tai received a number that involved the U.S.-China Phase One Trade Agreement. For example, in response to a question from Senator Thune, Ms. Tai indicated that she would “assess China’s compliance with the Phase One deal to ensure it is living up to its commitments.” See Senate Finance Committee, Hearing to Consider the Nomination of Katherine C. Tai, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Hearing Date: February 25, 2021, Questions for the Record, page 41, Senator Thune, Question 2, answer, https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Katherine%20Tai%20Senate%20Finance%20Committee%20QFRs%202.28.2021.pdf. The full question and answer are copied below.

“Question 2:

“As a result of the U.S.-China Phase One trade deal, the U.S. has seen export gains to China across many agricultural sectors including soybeans, corn, beef, and pork.

If confirmed, how would you ensure that China follows through on its Phase One commitments, particularly for U.S. agriculture? What steps would you take to build upon these successes and ensure that U.S. farm and ranch exports to China are not unfairly restricted by tariff and nontariff barriers?

Answer: The Biden-Harris Administration is engaged in a review of the policies in place to respond to China’s coercive and unfair trade practices, including with respect to agricultural products. I understand that a comprehensive strategy to confront the China challenge will be formulated based on that review. If confirmed, as part of that comprehensive review, I will assess China’s compliance with the Phase One deal to ensure it is living up to its commitments.

Thus, one can expect that USTR under Amb. Tai will be continuing to monitor China’s implementation and enforcement of a wide range of changes to regulations an d practices intended to remove non-tariff barriers as well as tracking Chinese purchases of U.S. goods against the Annex 6.1 commitments made by China in the Phase I Agreement.

As reported in prior posts, both China and the U.S. have taken steps to implement parts of the Phase 1 Agreement that took effect on February 14, 2020, although the level of actual implementation remains unclear.

Prior posts on the U.S.-China Phase 1 Agreement can be found here: February 6, 2021, U.S.-China Phase I Trade Agreement – data through December 2020; China has increased purchases of agricultural and energy products above 2017 levels but did not reach first year agreed purchases in 2020 and won’t reached the agreed level even if measured from March 2020-February 2021, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/06/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-data-through-december-2020-china-has-increased-purchases-of-agricultural-and-energy-products-above-2017-levels-but-did-not-reach-first-year-agreed-purchases-in/; January 9, 2021, U.S.-China Phase 1 Trade Agreement — Data through November 2020; China has increased purchases of agricultural and energy products above 2017 levels but will not reach first year agreed purchases in 2020 whether measured on a calendar basis or on a March 2020-February 2021 basis, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/09/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-data-through-november-2020-china-has-increased-purchases-of-agricultural-and-energy-products-above-2017-levels-but-will-not-reach-first-year-agreed-purchases-in/; December 10, 2020, U.S.-China Phase I Trade Agreement – data through October 2020; while China has increased purchases of agricultural and some other products, China remains far behind on the agreed purchases in 2020 whether measured on a calendar basis or on a March 2020-February 2021 basis, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/12/10/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-data-through-october-2020-while-china-has-increased-purchases-of-agricultural-and-some-other-products-china-remains-far-behind-on-the-agreed-purchases-in-2020-w/; November 13, 2020, U.S.-China Phase 1 trade agreement – Data through September 2020; USDA and USTR report on agriculture portion, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/11/13/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-data-through-september-2020-usda-and-ustr-report-on-agriculture-portion/; October 10, 2020,  U.S.-China Phase I Trade Agreement – first six months data on U.S. exports (March-August 2020) covered by the purchase commitments show China needing to triple purchases in next five months to meet first year commitments, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/10/10/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-first-six-months-data-on-u-s-exports-march-august-2020-covered-by-the-purchase-commitments-show-china-needing-to-triple-purchases-in-next-six-months-to-meet-fi/; September 12, 2020, U.S.-China Phase I Trade Agreement – How is China Doing to Meet Purchase Commitments for the First Year; a Review of U.S. Domestic Exports through July 2020, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/09/12/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-how-is-china-doing-to-meet-purchase-commitments-for-the-first-year-a-review-of-u-s-domestic-exports-through-july-2020/; August 8, 2020, U.S.-China Phase 1 trade agreement – review of U.S. domestic exports through June 2020, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/08/08/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-review-of-u-s-domestic-exports-through-june-2020/; July 10, 2020, U.S.-China Phase 1 Trade Agreement – limited progress on increased U.S. exports to China (through May), https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/07/10/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-limited-progress-on-increased-u-s-exports-to-china-through-may/; June 5, 2020, U.S.-China Phase I Deal is Failing Expanded U.S. Exports Even Before Recent Efforts by China to Limit Certain U.S. Agriculture Exports as Retaliation for U.S. Position on Hong Kong, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/06/05/u-s-china-phase-i-deal-is-failing-expanded-u-s-exports-even-before-recent-efforts-by-china-to-limit-certain-u-s-agriculture-exports-as-retaliation-for-u-s-position-on-hong-kong/; May 12, 2020, U.S.-China Phase I Agreement – some progress on structural changes; far behind on trade in goods and services, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/05/12/u-s-china-phase-i-agreement-some-progress-on-structural-changes-far-behind-on-trade-in-goods-and-services/; January 19, 2020, U.S.-China Phase 1 Agreement – Details on the Expanding Trade Chapter, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/01/19/u-s-china-phase-1-agreement-details-on-the-expanding-trade-chapter/; January 15, 2020, U.S.-China Phase 1 Trade Agreement Signed on January 15 – An Impressive Agreement if Enforced, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/01/15/u-s-china-phase-1-trade-agreement-signed-on-january-15-an-impressive-agreement-if-enforced/.

This post looks at U.S. export data for January 2021, a month whose data reflects basically business in the last month of the Trump Administration.

Purchase Commitments

Annex 6.1 of the Phase I Agreement contains commitments for “additional U.S. exports to China on Top of 2017 baseline” for two years, 2020 and 2021. Article 6.3 of the Agreement states that “The Parties project that the trajectory of increases in the amounts of manufactured goods, agricultural goods, energy products, and services purchased and imported into China from the United States will continue in calendar years 2022 through 2025.

The Agreement lists 18 categories of goods grouped in three broad categories (manufactured goods, agriculture and energy) and five services categories. Chinese imports of goods and services from the United States under the Agreement are supposed to increase by $76.7 billion in the first year over levels achieved in 2017 and in the second year by $123.3 billion over 2017 levels. The categories and tariff items included in the goods categories are reviewed in Annex 6.1 of the Agreement and the attachment to Annex 6.1. In the confidential version of the agreement, growth levels are provided for each of the 23 categories of goods and services.

Article 6.2 of the Agreement defines the time period for the purchase commitments as being January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. So the first year by agreement was calendar year 2020. Calendar year 2021 is the second year of the agreement. The level of increases in U.S. exports to China for 2021 is as follows: manufactured goods $44.8 billion on top of 2017 base line of $58.4 billion (2021 total of $103.2 billion or an increase of 76.81% over 2017 actual); agriculture (including seafood) $19.5 billion on top of 2017 base line of $20.85 billion (2021 total of $40.35 billion or an increase of 93.51% over 2017 actual); energy $33.9 billion on top of 2017 base line of $7.6 billion (2021 total of $41.5 billion or an increase of 447.95% over 2017 actual); services $25.1 billion on top of 2017 base line for the selected services of $53.033 billion (2021 total of $78.133 billion or an increase of 47.33% over 2017 actual). Increases from 2017 for the calendar year 2020 agreed levels were lower than for 2021 (increases over 2017 of $32.9 billion, $12.5 billion, $18.5 billion and $12.8 billion respectively for manufactured goods, agriculture, energy and services). The breakout of services exports is not available for 2020 or January 2021. However, U.S. exports of all services to China for 2020 were $37.921 billion vs. $54.981 billion in 2017, a decline of 31% for all services, thus, U.S. services exports covered by the Phase I Agreement declined in 2020. See U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, MONTHLY U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES, JANUARY 2021, March 5, 2021, page 28, Exhibit 20b, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/ft900.pdf. While the BEA data don’t show exports of services in January by country, January 2021 total services exports are down from January 2020 (before the pandemic resulted in significant closures) with the largest reductions in travel followed by transport and by maintenance and repair services.

In 2017, the selected goods covered by Annex 6.1 were $86.795 billion of total U.S. domestic exports to China of $120.109 billion, meaning non-covered U.S. exports in 2017 were $33.314 billion. On services, the selected services covered by Annex 6.1 were $53.033 billion of total services exports to China of $54.981. So non-covered services were $1.948 billion. For goods, there were sharp declines in 2020 of U.S. exports to China of non-covered products from the levels achieved in 2017 (roughly $6.6 billion). Non-covered products are slightly up in January 2021 versus January 2017. While the services break out for 2020 is not yet available by country by type of service, total services exports to China (as reviewed above) were down 31% . The non-covered services are relatively small (just 3.5% of total services exports).

Since the Agreement took effect in mid-February, my analysis in prior posts has focused on the period since the agreement went into effect (for statistics, from March 1, 2020). This is consistent with the position that USTR and USDA took in the Trump Administration in an interim report released on October 23 looking at China’s compliance with its purchase commitments in agriculture. “It is worth noting that the Phase One Agreement did not go into effect until February 14, 2020, and March is the first full month of its effect. That means that we have seen seven months of agreement sales.” U.S. Trade Representative’s Office and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Interim Report on the Economic and Trade Agreement between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, AGRICULTURAL TRADE, October 23, 2020, Page 1.

March 2020-January 2021 data compared to 2017 (other than February); January 2021 compared to January 2017

For purposes of this post, I will look at the March 2020 – January 2021 data compared to January and March-December 2017 data, but I will also look at the first month of 2021 compared to January 2017. In my last post in February, I had reviewed calendar 2020 data compared to 2017 data. The data analyzed is limited to goods since the services data is more limited and has been summarized above.

Looking at U.S. domestic exports for the March 2020 – January 2021 period and projecting for a full twelve months (March 2020-February 2021) shows China meeting 94.64% of first year agriculture commitments, and 51.06% above 2017 actual levels for all months other than February. Total Phase 1 products are projected at only 61.01% of first year commitments with manufactured goods at 52.78% and energy at 44.47%. While agriculture products are projected to exceed 2017 actual by $10.7 billion and energy is projected to exceed 2017 by $4.0 billion, manufactured goods are projected to be $10.2 billion smaller than 2017 actual. Compared to first year purchase commitments, total U.S. Phase I goods exports are projected to be $59.4 billion short of the agreed first year level.

If looking at a calendar year 2021, the data for January show increases for each of the three goods categories over January 201 but each category trails the level of increase needed to meet 2021 purchase commitments. Manufactured goods are up 4.39%, but the commitment levels are 76.81% higher than 2017 actual. Similarly, on agricultural products covered by the Phase I commitments, U.S. exports are up 58.51% from 2017 compared to the 2021 increase of 98.51% over 2017 needed to meet the commitments for 2021. On energy, U.S. exports are up 150.56% over January 2017 but far below the 447.99% increase needed to meet the Phase I commitments for 2021. For all Phase I goods, U.S. exports in January are up 33.34% but the annual increase to meet the Phase I commitment is 113.14%.

To meet first year commitments on a March 2020-February 2021 basis , China would have to import monthly 7.71 times the product from the United States as was done in the first eleven months in the next month (February). On a calendar basis, U.S. domestic exports in January 2021 missed the agreed level on goods by $5.375 billion (or an amount equal to 59.49% of January 2021 actual).

Looking at total U.S. domestic exports of goods to China for the period March 2020 – January 2021., U.S. exports were $109.313 billion ($9.938 billion/month) compared to $111.099 billion in 2017 for the eleven months (all other than February)($10.100 billion/month). These include both products covered by the Annex 6.1 commitments and other products. For January 2021, total U.S. domestic exports to China were $11.254 billion compared to $9.350 billion in January 2017.

Total 2017 U.S. domestic exports of goods to China were $120.1 billion. The Phase 1 Agreement calls for increases on a subset of goods of $63.9 billion in the first year. Thus, the target for the first year of the U.S.-China Phase 1 Agreement is U.S. exports to China of $184 billion if non-subject goods are exported at 2017 levels.

Other U.S. domestic exports not covered by the 18 categories in Annex 6.1 were $33.314 billion in 2017 (full year) and $30.806 billion for 2017 excluding February. For the period March 2020 – January 2021, non-covered products (which face significant tariffs in China based on retaliation for US 301 duties) have declined 18.86%, and total exports to China are down 1.61%. Looking at January 2021, other U.S. domestic exports (i.e., not covered by the Phase I Agreement) were down 13.05% from comparable levels in January 2017.

Thus, the first eleven months since the U.S.-China Phase 1 Agreement went into effect suggest that U.S. domestic exports of the Annex 6 goods will be $91.334 billion if the full year shows the same level of increase over 2017 for each of the 18 categories of goods; non-covered products would be $26.845 billion, for total U.S. domestic exports to China of $118.179 billion. This figure would be below 2017 and dramatically below the target of $184.0 billion (if noncovered products remain are at 2017 levels; $176.938 billion with noncovered products at estimated March 2020 – February 2021 levels) . The projected U.S. domestic exports to China would, however, be higher than the $109.72 billion in 2018 and the depressed figure of $94.100 billion in 2019.

If one looks at January 2021, U.S. domestic exports to China of Annex 6 goods were $8.981 billion, other exports of $2.274 billion, for total domestic exports in January 2021 of $11.254 billion, ahead of January 2017 but $5.375 billion behind the 2021 rate of increase over 2017 of 113.14%.

The 18 product categories included in Annex 6.1 of the Phase 1 Agreement show the following for January, March-December 2017, March 2020 – January 2021 and rate of growth for the first year of the Agreement (figures in $ million):

Product categoryJanuary, March-December 2017March 2020 -January 2021% change 11 mos. 2017 2020/2021$ Value needed in next month to reach 1st year of Agreement vs. projected 1st year
manufactured goods
1. industrial machinery $10,013.7          
$11,612.1

+15.96%
2. electrical equipment and machinery $3,966.0
$4,460.9
+12.48%
3. pharma- ceutical products $1,939.6 $3,017.0
+55.54%
4. aircraft (orders and deliveries) $15,212.8 $3,682.4 -75.79%
5. vehicles $9,132.1
$5,659.5
-38.03%
6. optical and medical instruments $2,901.3
$3,317.9
+14.36%
7. iron and steel
$1,093.3
$454.4
-58.44%
8. other manufactured goods $10,092.7 $12,654.8 +25.39%
Total for mfg goods
$54,351.7
$44,858.9
-17.47%
$43,094.5
Agriculture
9. oilseeds $11,171.5 $15,785.7 +41.30%
10. meat $511.7 $2,968.5 +480.16%
11. cereals $1,276.5 $3,384.2 +165.13%
12. cotton $828.1 $1,855.8 +124.11%
13. other agricultural commodities $4,148.3
$4,219.4
+1.71%
14. seafood $1,173.6 $653.7 -44.30%
Total for agriculture $19,109.7 $28,867.4 +51.06% $1,788.7
Energy
15. liquefied natural gas $365.8 $1,597.2 +336.6%
16. crude oil $3,865.3 $6,881.4 +78.03%
17. refined products $2,197.4
$1,655.9
-24.64%
18. coal $403.4 $242.3 -39.94%
Total for energy $6,831.9 $10,376.9 +51.89% $14,477.9
Total for 1-18 $80,293.3 $84,103.2 +4.75% $59,361.0

Conclusion

As reviewed in prior posts, the U.S.-China Phase 1 Agreement is a potentially important agreement which attempts to address a range of U.S. concerns with the bilateral relationship and obtain somewhat better reciprocity with the world’s largest exporter. The Phase 1 Agreement has left other challenges to a Phase 2 negotiation which has not yet begun. USTR Tai has indicated that the Biden Administration will monitor compliance by China with the terms of the Phase I Agreement.

While there has been some progress on non-trade volume issues that are included in the Phase 1 Agreement and some significant improvements in exports of U.S. agricultural goods, there has been very little forward movement in expanding total U.S. exports of goods to China in fact and a sharp decline in U.S. exports of services to China.

The differences in economic systems between China and the United States have made reliance on WTO rules less relevant to the Trump Administration as those rules presume market-based economies and presently don’t address the myriad distortions that flow from the Chinese state capital system. Thus, the Phase I Agreement was an effort to move the needle in trade relations with China to achieve greater reciprocity. It has had some limited success to date. While the Biden Administration is doing a full review of the challenges posed by China’s trade policies, it is good news that they will be working to see that the Phase I Agreement is fulfilled.

U.S. files appeal at the WTO from panel report in case brought by the Republic of Korea — United States — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products and the Use of Facts Available (DS539)

In a post from January 29, 2021, I had argued that the United States should appeal from the panel report issued on January 21 in a trade remedies dispute brought by the Republic of Korea against the use of facts available in antidumping and countervailing duty cases. See January 29, 2021, WTO Panel report on UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS AND THE USE OF FACTS AVAILABLE should be appealed by the United States, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/29/wto-panel-report-on-united-states-anti-dumping-and-countervailing-duties-on-certain-products-and-the-use-of-facts-available-should-be-appealed-by-the-united-states/. As I wrote in that post:

“Antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings in the United States are very transparent with full access to information on the record available to parties under administrative protective order and with many opportunities to submit comments, raise questions, seek clarification or respond to additional inquiries flowing from earlier responses. It is quite common for Commerce to receive requests for more time to respond to the initial questionnaire and to any supplemental requests flowing from developments. Responding parties can determine whether or not to submit all information, partial information or no information. Questionnaire responses are often incomplete or adopt interpretations of what has been requested to provide less than complete information. In antidumping investigations, it is not uncommon for respondent data bases to change during the course of the investigation, sometimes markedly. Briefing after the preliminary determination permits challenges to the preliminary determination by all parties, including challenges to use of facts available. While there are always legal issues that are briefed, facts available issues are fact-based issues flowing from whether parties cooperated, withheld information, failed to supply requested information, etc., and if so, what alternative information is available that can be used.

“The ADA provides special provisions on dispute settlement in Article 17.6. The approach on review of facts is laid out in Article 17.6(i) of the ADA (there is no counterpart in the ASCM for the reason that Art. 17.6 of the ADA was added at the end of the Uruguay Round without chance to consider adopting a parallel provision in the ASCM). Art. 17.6(i) states:

“‘17.6  In examining the matter referred to in paragraph 5:

“‘(i)   in its assessment of the facts of the matter, the panel shall determine whether the authorities’ establishment of the facts was proper and whether their evaluation of those facts was unbiased and objective. If the establishment of the facts was proper and the evaluation was unbiased and objective, even though the panel might have reached a different conclusion, the evaluation shall not be overturned;’

“Article 17.6 was added to the ADA at the end of the Uruguay Round at the insistence of the United States which was interested in seeing that very complicated and detailed administrative proceedings were not second guessed by panels or the Appellate Body which would not have been involved in the proceeding or have access to all materials. Art. 17.6(i) deals with providing deference to administering authorities on facts. Art. 17.6(ii) does the same for legal interpretations for provisions subject to more than one meaning.

“The panel report, following other panel and Appellate Body reports that have been problematic from the U.S. perspective, doesn’t view Art. 17.6(i) as being deferential to an investigating authority as long as the authority hasn’t conducted the investigation in a biased or non-objective manner or somehow established facts improperly. See WT/DS539/R at para. 7.23 – 7.36 (after a review of the meaning of ADA Art. 6.8 and Annex II, the panel sums its view of the panel’s task to be the following: ‘In sum, we consider that the terms of Article 6.8, interpreted in light of their context and object and purpose, require investigating authorities to select – in an unbiased and objective manner – those facts available that constitute reasonable replacements for the missing ‘necessary’ information in the specific facts and circumstances of a given case. In doing so, investigating authorities must take into account all facts that are properly available to them. In selecting the replacement facts, Article 6.8 does not require investigating authorities to select those facts that are most ‘favourable’ to the non-cooperating party. Investigating authorities may take into account the procedural circumstances in which information is missing, but Article 6.8 does not condone the selection of replacement facts for the purpose of punishing interested parties.’).

“In reading the panel report, the Commerce Department is not given deference for its decisions of what facts available should be used. Thus, that violations were found for how Commerce determined facts available in each of the six proceedings reflect the panel reaching a different conclusion than Commerce. But while the panel may have reached a different result than Commerce, that by itself does not constitute a basis under Art. 17.6(i) to find a violation.

Conclusion

“The constant limiting by panel and Appellate Body reports of the ability to utilize trade remedy agreements is, of course, the main substantive concern that the United States has with the operation of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement system, although there are examples of the same problem in other areas covered by panel or AB reports as well. Last week’s panel report on Korea’s challenge to U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings on the use of facts available continues to undermine the legitimacy of WTO dispute settlement.

“Accordingly, the Biden Administration should file an appeal from last week’s panel decision and ensure that any eventual resolution of the Appellate Body impasse includes a restoration of rights that have narrowed or eliminated under the trade remedy or trade defense agreements (ADA, ASCM and safeguard).”

Today’s appeal

A Dispute Settlement Body meeting was scheduled for today with only one item on its agenda, consideration of the panel report in DS539. The WTO has reported on its website that the United States filed an appeal of the panel report today, March 19, 2021. WT/DS539/9. While the notice of appeal is not yet up on the WTO website, the U.S. has presumably indicated it is challenging the erroneous interpretation of ADA 17.6(i) among other issues.

The U.S. appeal is the ninth such appeal to the Appellate Body after December 10, 2019 when the Appellate Body ceased to have at least three members (and hence is unable to hear new appeals) and the eighteenth appeal that awaits the restoration of an Appellate Body for an appeal to be heard/completed.

Katherine Tai confirmed by Senate as United States Trade Representative

As reviewed in prior posts, Katherine Tai is President Biden’s nominee to be his U.S. Trade Representative and faces a full agenda when confirmed. See December 12, 2020, The Incoming Biden Administration and International Trade – Katherine Tai, nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/12/12/the-incoming-biden-administration-and-international-trade-katherine-tai-nominee-for-u-s-trade-representative/; February 25, 2021, U.S. Trade Representative nominee Katherine Tai confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/25/u-s-trade-representative-nominee-katherine-tai-confirmation-hearing-before-the-u-s-senate-finance-committee/; March 2, 2021:  Katherine Tai, USTR designate, on addressing WTO reform including dispute settlement if confirmed; the USTR 2021 Trade Policy Agenda; https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/02/katherine-tai-ustr-designate-on-addressing-wto-reform-including-dispute-settlement-if-confirmed-the-ustr-2021-trade-policy-agenda/.

The Senate Finance Committee voted her out of Committee by voice vote on March 3, 2021. She cleared a procedural vote in the full Senate unanimously on March 16th after being introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Wyden. His comments are copied below. See Wyden Statement on Senate Floor on Nomination of Katherine Tai to be USTR, March 161, 2021, https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-statement-on-senate-floor-on-nomination-of-katherine-tai-to-be-ustr.

“Madam President, the Senate will shortly take a procedural vote on the nomination of Katherine Tai to serve as the next U.S. Trade Representative. If you watched any of Ms. Tai’s nomination hearing before the Finance Committee, you know she’s got a lot of fans on both sides of the Senate. I expect my colleagues will vote overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, to confirm Ms. Tai, and I only regret that the other side didn’t allow this vote to happen sooner. So I want to take just a few minutes to discuss some of the reasons why she’s the right choice for this important job.

“First, she knows that the name of the game when it comes to this country’s trade policy is protecting and creating high-skill, high-wage jobs in America. Our country saw for the past four years that a strategy of sending mean tweets and acting on chaos does not create jobs. Under President Biden, and with Katherine Tai leading USTR, I’m confident our approach is going to be a lot more effective.

“Ms. Tai’s got exactly the right experience for this job. She led crackdowns against China’s trade cheating and job rip-offs. As the top trade staffer on the Ways and Means Committee, she was at the forefront of the effort to improve the New NAFTA, when the Trump administration handed the Congress a deal that wasn’t strong enough for America’s workers. She’s already got a long track record of achieving wins for America’s workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers.

“Second, Ms. Tai has committed to the Finance Committee that she’ll work with us on the issue of transparency. Bringing more sunlight to this country’s trade agreements has long been one of my top priorities for trade.

“That’s why I’m glad that President Biden has chosen someone with Congressional experience for the role of USTR. The Constitution gives the Congress authority over international trade, and Congress has delegated some of its power to the Executive Branch. That means all sides need to work together as partners, with open channels of communication, accountability and transparency. It also means transparency with the public.

“I know that Ms. Tai will continue to raise the bar for transparency and communications with Congress because she’s been on our side of policymaking, and she’s proven that transparency is one of her priorities.

“With a former senator in the White House and a former House staffer at USTR, I believe there’s a recipe for a productive partnership with Congress that will help get trade done right and create more high-skill, high-wage jobs in America.

“There’s one other Finance Committee priority I want to mention. On Thursday, the committee will hold a hearing on the subject of stamping out forced labor around the world.

“It is evil. It is morally repugnant. And it’s a direct attack on workers in this country, because when American workers have to compete against slave labor, everybody loses. It’s a race to absolute rock bottom for labor rights.

“Ms. Tai is committed to President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. A key part of that agenda is ensuring that our workers are competing on a level playing field with the rest of the world. It’s not a level playing field when other countries are producing goods with slave labor. 

“Our government has laws on the books that can crack down on countries using slave labor and keep those products out of our market, but it will require an unwavering commitment to tough trade enforcement. This is going to be an area of special focus for the Finance Committee. Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for a long time. I know Ms. Tai is committed to working with us on it. It’s an opportunity to stand up for what’s right around the world and protect American jobs and wages at the same time.

“I’ll wrap up on this. Katherine Tai is going to make a great U.S. Trade representative. She’s got the right diversity of experience. She’s focused on protecting American workers and creating new high-skill, high-wage jobs in this country. She’s ready to work with us on transparency.

“I believe she’s going to have strong bipartisan support from the Senate. I’m with her 100 percent and I urge all my colleagues to support her nomination as well.”

Today, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Katherine Tai as U.S. Trade Representative. The vote was unanimous (98-0). The new USTR has a full plate in terms of pressing matters, including the resolution of the Airbus-Boeing dispute during the four month pause on application of retaliatory tariffs by both the EU, U.K. and U.S., WTO reform and ongoing negotiations, U.S.-China trade relations and retaliatory tariffs in light of Chinese practices, negotiations started during the Trump Administration (U.S. China Phase I completed, U.S.-Japan Phase 1 completed, U.S.-U.K., U.S.-Kenya), review of the 301 exclusion process, 301 investigations on digital services taxes, and much more. There are many issues of importance to members of Congress that will be on USTR Tai’s agenda. Certainly improved communications with Congress, greater transparency and heightened activity on stopping imports made from forced labor — issues raised by Senate Finance Chairman Wyden and other Senate Finance members — will be among them.

In two prior posts, I looked at the forced and child labor issues. See January 25, 2021, Child labor and forced labor in cotton production — is there a current WTO mandate to identify and quantify the distortive effects?, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/25/child-labor-and-forced-labor-in-cotton-production-is-there-a-current-wto-mandate-to-identify-and-quantify-the-distortive-effects/; January 24, 2021, Forced labor and child labor – a continued major distortion in international trade for some products, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/01/24/forced-labor-and-child-labor-a-continued-major-distortion-in-international-trade-for-some-products/. While the Trump Administration had taken some actions on forced labor, it is clear that the Biden Administration and at least many members of Congress will be looking for greater efforts to stop such practices and any imports that result from such practices in trading partners.

With the new USTR confirmed (presumably to be sworn in today or tomorrow), it will be of interest who and when the other high level USTR officials needed to round out the team will be nominated and confirmed. Best wishes to the new U.S. Trade Representative in the many tasks in front of the country in the trade sphere.

Climate change and a border tax — will the U.S. and EU have a unified position at the WTO in 2021?

The European Union has been working on reducing its carbon footprint consistent with the Paris Agreement commitments and its updated 2030 reduction levels. Part of its effort has been to impose costs on carbon content of certain high energy-consuming industries. To avoid carbon leakage, the EU has been looking at the possibility of imposing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. The European Commission’s work program has the EC presenting a draft proposal of such a mechanism in the second quarter of 2021. See EU Green Deal (carbon border adjustment mechanism), https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12228-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism. The Inception impact assessment released by the European Commission is embedded below.

090166e5ccbe6acd-2

The EU has indicated that whatever action it takes in its carbon border adjustment mechanism will be consistent with WTO obligations.

The Biden Administration, in the President’s 2021 Trade Policy Agenda, has indicated an openness to considering a carbon border adjustment. See 2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program, March 2021, page 3, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2021/2021%20Trade%20Agenda/Online%20PDF%202021%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda%20and%202020%20Annual%20Report.pdf. The section on “Putting the World on a Sustainable Environment and Climate Path” is copied below (emphasis added).

“The United States and the global community face a profound climate crisis, and the Biden Administration is committed to pursuing action at home and abroad to avoid the increasingly disruptive and potentially catastrophic impact of climate change. The United States will work with other countries, both bilaterally and multilaterally, toward environmental sustainability.

“As part of this whole-of-government effort, the trade agenda will include the negotiation and implementation of strong environmental standards that are also critical to a sustainable climate pathway. These standards will include promoting sustainable stewardship of natural resources, such as sustainable fisheries management, and preventing harmful environmental practices, such as illegal logging and wildlife trafficking. This comprehensive approach may also entail leveraging our strong bilateral and multilateral trade relationships to raise global climate ambition.

“The Biden Administration will work with allies and partners that are committed to fighting climate change. This will include exploring and developing market and regulatory approaches to address greenhouse gas emissions in the global trading system. As appropriate, and consistent with domestic approaches to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, this includes consideration of carbon border adjustments. Additionally, the Biden Administration will work with allies as they develop their own approaches and act against trading partners that fail to meet their environmental obligations under existing trade agreements.

“The trade agenda will support the Biden Administration’s comprehensive vision of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving net-zero global emissions by 2050, or before, by fostering U.S. innovation and production of climate-related technology and promoting resilient renewable energy supply chains.”

President Biden’s Special Envoy on Climate traveled to the United Kingdom and to the European Union the week of March 8. See U.S. Department of State, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Engages European Allies on Climate Ambition, March 6, 2021, https://www.state.gov/special-presidential-envoy-for-climate-john-kerry-engages-european-allies-on-climate-ambition/ (traveling to London, Brussels and Paris March 8-10). A Financial Times article indicated that Special Envoy Kerry was pushing the European Commission to hold up any announcement on a carbon border adjustment mechanism until after the November 2021 meeting of parties to the Paris Agreement in Glasgow (COP26) to see if sufficient commitments were made to make such a mechanism unnecessary. The article indicated that a draft proposal was expected from the EC in June. See Financial Times, John Kerry warns EU against carbon border tax, March 12, 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/3d00d3c8-202d-4765-b0ae-e2b212bbca98 (“The former secretary of state told the Financial Times he was ‘concerned’ about Brussels’ forthcoming plans for a carbon border adjustment mechanism and urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow to move forward.”).

Obviously, Special Envoy Kerry’s comments prioritize diplomacy over development of a mechanism to deal with countries who are slow to address the pressing climate challenges. The EU system, of course, has a process for approving proposals like the carbon border adjustment mechanism which if followed as presently planned presumably would not result in adoption in 2021. It is not clear from the press article if the U.S. concern is with the planned June proposal or with ensuring that no adoption happens until after the Glasgow meeting in November. If the latter, there should be little problem for the EU to ensure no adoption in 2021, and the EC proposal could include language about the COP 26 meeting. If the former, postponing action by the EC would push back adoption by at least six months which may or may not be acceptable to the EU.

With USTR nominee Katherine Tai expected to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate later this week, it is unclear based on the press article of the meeting between the EC and Special Envoy Kerry if USTR would hold up efforts to find common ground with the EU on the trade approach on climate change, including on what a carbon border adjustment mechanism would look like so that there is a united front between the U.S. and the EU whenever the mechanism is presented (or at least adopted).

With China, the largest emitter, having announced that it will continue to increase it emissions until 2030, the efforts of the EU and U.S. to speed up the global reductions in emissions will face insurmountable obstacles if there isn’t greater efforts by all, including China. See Politico, US and EU search for a China climate doctrine that works, The first European trip by US climate envoy John Kerry sparks a joint effort to get China to cut its emissions, March 9, 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/u-s-and-eu-search-for-a-china-climate-strategy-after-snub/.

There is little doubt that if all major emitters are not in solidarity on the need to increase the depth of carbon reductions quickly, there will be carbon border adjustment mechanisms put in place by the EU and likely by the U.S. to ensure actions taken in countries working hard toward major reductions in emissions by 2030 are not undermined by less ambitious objectives. A joint effort by the U.S. and EU would be more effective than the EU going it alone. Let’s hope common ground is found on how to proceed.

COVID-19 vaccines — U.S., Japan, India and Australia agree to one billion doses for Indo-Pacific countries

In a post earlier today, I reviewed a Chatham House event which looked at issues surrounding ramping-up production, dealing with supply chain issues and other matters affecting production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. See March 12, 2021, The 8-9 March  “Global C19 Vaccine Supply Chain and Manufacturing Summit” – efforts to ramp-up production, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/12/the-8-9-march-global-c19-vaccine-supply-chain-and-manufacturing-summit-efforts-to-ramp-up-production/

Today, the U.S., Japan, India and Australia held a head of government remote Quad meeting. One of the outcomes being reported in the press was agreement that the United States and Japan would pay for, India would produce and Australia would distribute one billion doses of COVID vaccine for the Indo-Pacific region. See Financial Times, US and Asia allies launch major vaccine drive to counter China, The 1bn Covid jabs will be funded by US and Japan, made in India and distributed by Australia, March 12, 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/bcf5ff42-ac7f-4533-8fc2-b3e50a5e13ba.

The White House fact sheet on the quad meeting is available on the White House webpage. The portion dealing with the COVID-19 vaccines is copied below. See White House, Fact Sheet: Quad Summit, March 12, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/12/fact-sheet-quad-summit/. The one billion doses will be made available in 2021 and will be done in consultation with WHO, COVAX and others.

The Quad Vaccine Partnership

“While ensuring that vaccines have been made available to our people, “Quad” partners will launch a landmark partnership to further accelerate the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Together, Quad leaders are taking shared action necessary to expand safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing in 2021, and will work together to strengthen and assist countries in the Indo-Pacific with vaccination, in close coordination with the existing relevant multilateral mechanisms including WHO and COVAX.

“o Drawing on each of our strengths, we will tackle this complex issue with multi-sectoral cooperation across many stages of action, starting with ensuring global availability of safe and effective vaccines.

“o Quad partners are working collaboratively to achieve expanded manufacturing of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines at facilities in India, prioritizing increased capacity for vaccines authorized by Stringent Regulatory Authorities (SRA). Quad partners will address financing and logistical demands for production, procurement, and delivery of safe and effective vaccines. Quad partners will work to use our shared tools and expertise, through mechanisms at institutions including the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and, as appropriate, Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC), as well as others.

“o The United States, through the DFC, will work with Biological E Ltd., to finance increased capacity to support Biological E’s effort to produce at least 1 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines by the end of 2022 with Stringent Regulatory Authorization (SRA) and/or World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Use Listing (EUL), including the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

“o Japan, through JICA, is in discussions to provide concessional yen loans for the Government of India to expand manufacturing for COVID-19 vaccines for export, with a priority on producing vaccines that have received authorization from WHO Emergency Use Listing (EUL) or Stringent Regulatory Authorities.

“o Quad partners will ensure expanded manufacturing will be exported for global benefit, to be procured through key multilateral initiatives, such as COVAX, that provide life-saving vaccines for low-income countries, and by countries in need.

“o Quad partners will also cooperate to strengthen ‘last-mile’ vaccination, building on existing health-security and development programs, and across our governments to coordinate and strengthen our programs in the Indo-Pacific.

“o This includes supporting countries with vaccine readiness and delivery, vaccine procurement, health workforce preparedness, responses to vaccine misinformation, community engagement, immunization capacity, and more.

“o Australia will contribute US$77 million for the provision of vaccines and “last-mile” delivery support with a focus on Southeast Asia, in addition to its existing commitment of US$407 million for regional vaccine access and health security which will provide full vaccine coverage to nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste, and support procurement, prepare for vaccine delivery, and strengthen health systems in Southeast Asia.

“o Japan will assist vaccination programs of developing countries such as the purchase of vaccines and cold-chain support including through provision of grant aid of $41 million and new concessional yen loans, ensuring alignment with and support of COVAX.

“o The United States will leverage existing programs to further boost vaccination capability, drawing on at least $100 million in regional efforts focused on immunization.”

Conclusion

The solution to the COVID-19 pandemic involves greater cooperation among governments, international organizations, manufacturers, suppliers and others. The Quad’s announcement today is an important step in helping bring the pandemic to a close.

“No Quick Fixes for WTO Dispute Settlement Reform” — a skeptical view by the former Deputy USTR of the EU’s willingness to address core U.S. concerns

In yesterday’s post, I reviewed a program hosted by Georgetown Law’s Institute for International Economic Law that looked at opportunities for transatlantic cooperation in WTO reform. See March 10, 2021, Today’s webinar hosted by Georgetown Law’s Institute for International Economic Law “Rethinking the WTO:  Opportunity for Transatlantic Cooperation” — many areas for likely cooperation; some important challenges, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/10/todays-webinar-hosted-by-georgetown-laws-institute-for-international-economic-law-rethinking-the-wto-opportunity-for-transatlantic-cooperation-many-areas-for-likely-cooperation-some-impo/. The focus of the program was the mid-February EC Trade Policy Review paper and Annex on WTO Reform. While there was agreement that there were many areas of possible U.S.-EC cooperation in pursuing WTO reform, Thomas Graham, a former Appellate Body Member and Chair, raised a caution about how quickly meaningful reform of the WTO dispute settlement system could be achieved. He referenced a commentary published by CSIS from Amb. Dennis Shea, the former U.S. Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the WTO during the Trump Administration. See Amb. Dennis Shea, No Quick Fixes for WTO Dispute Settlement Reform, March 9, 2021, https://www.csis.org/analysis/no-quick-fixes-wto-dispute-settlement-reform.

Ambassador Shea’s commentary is worth separate review. Amb. Shea starts by sharing his experience in 2018 as the new U.S. ambassador to the WTO in pressing the EU on whether they shared U.S. concerns about overreach and other problems in the Appellate Body’s functioning and being told that the EU shared none of the U.S. concerns. He then contrasts that position with the position staked out in the EC’s Trade Policy Review paper where there is a recognition that the U.S. “has raised ‘a number of valid concerns'”. The point of Amb. Shea’s initial comments is both to show skepticism as to whether the EU change of position is real and to point out comments by the EU which suggests a lack of understanding of the U.S. concerns or which indicate needed reversal by the EU of a number of positions taken in the past. Amb. Shea urges the Biden Administration not to take up negotiations before the U.S. is able to explore with the EU and others “why the Appellate Body felt free to overreach and why the WTO membership allowed it to occur for so long. A shared diagnosis of the problem will help lead to more durable solutions, including a possible rethinking of the dispute settlement system itself.” This is, of course, the position that Amb. Shea,for the Trump Administration, took consistently at the WTO during his tenure there.

There is little doubt that many WTO Members have been looking at very limited modifications to the WTO dispute settlement system as being adequate to address longstanding U.S. concerns — an approach repeatedly rejected by the prior Administration and unlikely to result in forward progress with the Biden Administration.

The Appellate Body was a new concept added at the end of the Uruguay Round. The binding nature of dispute settlement with an Appellate Body was premised on a limited role for the Appellate Body and assumed an ability of WTO Members to correct erroneous decisions through either negotiations or through interpretations adopted by the Ministerial Conference or the General Council. After 25 years, it is clear that the checks on the dispute settlement system that are included in the WTO Agreements have not functioned as intended or functioned at all. Coupled with the collapse of the negotiating function more broadly, the reality has been a dispute settlement system that has often made up rights and obligations on the fly. Why WTO Members have been ok with that usurpation of sovereign states’ right to limit obligations to those negotiated and agreed to is the fundamental question. It is at the heart of Amb. Shea’s commentary.

From some thirty years of traveling to Geneva, I have heard from nearly every major Member using the dispute settlement system that based on how the Appellate Body was operating, the Member believed it could obtain results through disputes that should be the subject of negotiations and that the Member knew had not been agreed by trading partners. Thus, obtaining rights without negotiations is certainly one of the reasons that many Members have accepted the actions of the Appellate Body that have exceeded its limited authority over time. There are undoubtedly other reasons. Understanding the reasons for Member acceptance of a dispute settlement system operating outside of its limited mandate presumably would be relevant to identifying solutions that would put dispute settlement back into its proper role and ensure errors can be addressed in fact, not just in theory.

Amb. Shea presents eight questions for European trade officials that raise some of the concerns the U.S. has and highlight where there have been significant differences in the positions staked out by the EU in prior cases from the statements in the EC Trade Policy Review paper.

The first question goes to the lack of precedent in WTO dispute settlement and whether the EU thus now recognizes that the Appellate Body erred when it mandated that panels follow Appellate Body reports “absent cogent reasons”. He also asks if the EU rejects “the view that the Appellate Body was vested with broad authority to develop ‘a coherent and predictable body of jurisprudence?'” The U.S. position has been that the dispute settlement process is intended to help the Members find a solution to a problem raised, and that the power to establish rights and obligations lies with the Members through negotiations.

The second question goes to the proper role of the Appellate Body — whether the role is limited to questions of law raised on appeal or extends to whether panels made an objective assessment of the facts under DSU Art. 11. The EU has supported the latter position in prior disputes which has often meant a relitigation of cases at the Appellate Body level.

The EU in its Trade Policy Review paper states that the 90-day deadline for Appellate Body reports should be “strictlly respected”. Because this is different than the position the EU exhibited during the first 25 years when the Appellate Body far exceeded 90 days on a regular basis, Amb. Shea in his third question asks “What has changed?” Problems with timeliness of reports exist both for the Appellate Body and for panels. The problem at the Appellate Body has been noteworthy because of early year compliance with the requirements and early outreach to disputants where 90 days couldn’t be met but an evolution of the Appellate Body’s approach to where extensions were taken without consultations with the disputants.

On the topic of “overreach” by the Appellate Body, Amb. Shea asks whether the EU agrees with the U.S. on cases other than the Appellate Body’s interpretation of “public body’ and if yes, how would the EU propose correcting these other prior rulings? (Question 4). Questions 5 and 6 address particular areas of concern (additional requirements in safeguard cases; the prohibition created by the Appellate Body on “zeroing” in antidumping duty investigations). As I have raised in prior posts, there will not be a resolution of the impasse on the Appellate Body until the problem of overreach is addressed and correction of past overreach has been achieved. While there has been overreach in areas besides trade defense agreements, the three examples raised in Questions 4-6 deal with major overreach problems in the subsidy/countervailing duty, safeguard and antidumping agreements.

Question 7 asks the EU if it agrees with the problems identified by former Appellate Body member Thomas Graham “including a ‘prevailing ethos’ to act like a court that was unaccountable to WTO members, an unjustified sense of infallibility, and an excessive degree of control exercised by its staff”. Mr. Graham at yesterday’s IIEL program argued for the need for greater accountability and the need for reexamining the structure of the dispute settlement — presumably addressing his prior observations on the problems of the Appellate Body. See March 10, 2021, Today’s webinar hosted by Georgetown Law’s Institute for International Economic Law “Rethinking the WTO:  Opportunity for Transatlantic Cooperation” — many areas for likely cooperation; some important challenges, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/10/todays-webinar-hosted-by-georgetown-laws-institute-for-international-economic-law-rethinking-the-wto-opportunity-for-transatlantic-cooperation-many-areas-for-likely-cooperation-some-impo/. The U.S.’s position has been that the Appellate Body is not a court. Indeed, the EU has agreed that the Appellate Body is not a court. See October 1, 2020:  Thoughts on the Geneva Trade Week session entitled “WTO Dispute Settlement – Where Do We Stand?”, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/10/01/thoughts-on-the-geneva-trade-week-session-entitled-wto-dispute-settlement-where-do-we-stand/ (EU Amb. Machado’s summary (as compiled by me) included that “The EU agrees that panels and the Appellate Body are not courts and that panelists and AB members are not judges. It is the role of WTO Members, not adjudicators, to establish new rules.”). The question in essence goes to how does reform of the dispute settlement system restore the very limited role panels and any second tier review have in helping parties find a solution to a dispute between Members.

Amb. Shea’s last question acknowledges two of the demands of the EU — binding decisions independently reached. But he questions the value of a two-tier system noting that over 25 years it has often been the U.S. view that panels reached the correct result and the Appellate Body the incorrect result. “Shouldn’t the focus be on reforming the WTO dispute settlement system (perhaps with an updated appellate review mechanism) rather than ‘reconstituting’ the Appellate Body?” Amb. Shea’s question seems to stress the institutional problems that the Appellate Body has developed over 25 years and the potential challenges to actually reforming the Appellate Body. But Amb. Shea doesn’t say a second-tier couldn’t work, just that Members should not be locked into restoring the Appellate Body as such.

Conclusions

USTR under the Trump Administration did an exceptional job of laying out U.S. concerns with the WTO Appellate Body over a 2-3 year period. Amb. Shea’s commentary reflects the fact that during the Trump Administration (and before), the EU’s positions on a host of issues important to the proper functioning of the dispute settlement system differed from those of the United States.

The EC’s Trade Policy Review paper and Annex on WTO Reform is an important document, including by showing movement by the EU on some issues of concern to the U.S. in the dispute settlement arena. Amb. Shea’s commentary highlights some of the issues that need to be resolved if there is to be a meeting of the minds between the U.S. and EU on Appellate Body reform, including addressing overreach including on past Appellate Body reports. As Mr. Graham reviewed yesterday and as Amb. Shea reviews in his question 7, reform includes the need for greater accountability of those involved. It also involves a significant contraction in the role any second-tier review handles.

While the approach advocated by Amb. Shea certainly has merit (gain an understanding of “why” the Appellate Body exceeded its authority and Members accepted such action before starting negotiations), it also is possible for the U.S. to start laying out reform needs realizing that some such reforms may go beyond the DSU and operating procedures of the Appellate Body to ensure meaningful checks and balances through the Members (currently hypothetically through Ministerial Conferences or the General Council) or through creating a different appeal mechanism for legal questions. But as Mr. Graham indicated yesterday, dispute settlement will not happen quickly and will be challenging based on the depth of the problems and the need for structural changes and changes in operating procedures as well as addressing the substantive needs.

While there seemed to be different views within the Trump Administration on whether dispute settlement should be binding, that is not the view of Amb. Shea in his commentary nor is it historically the view of the U.S. Congress (as long as Members have the authority to not implement an adverse decision and rather pay compensation or suffer retaliation) or prior Administrations (including the Trump Administration in its handling of disputes). While it is not known as yet the position of the Biden Administration, it is likely that a system that is binding and independent should be acceptable if properly limited and with meaningful crosschecks. I don’t know that there will be objections to a two-tier process, although the reforms needed may make the resulting second-tier look very different from the Appellate Body.

Reform of the dispute settlement system and restoration of a two-tier review is important to most WTO Members. Having focused Members attention on the importance of reform, the Trump Administration has handed off dispute settlement reform to the Biden Administration with WTO Members finally understanding that the longstanding concerns of the United States need to be addressed. The EC Trade Policy Review paper and Annex on WTO Reform shows movement by the EU on some issues of importance to the U.S. While the road forward is likely to be complicated and long, hopefully the Biden Administration will help the process move forward by identifying the array of changes that are needed in the coming months.

Today’s webinar hosted by Georgetown Law’s Institute for International Economic Law “Rethinking the WTO: Opportunity for Transatlantic Cooperation” — many areas for likely cooperation; some important challenges

On March 10, 2021 Georgetown Law’s Institute for International Economic Law (IIEL) held the second in a series of events on “Rethinking the WTO”, this time on “Opportunity for Transatlantic Cooperation”. See Georgetown Law, Rethinking the WTO: Opportunity for Transatlantic Cooperation, March 8, 2021, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/rethinking-the-wto-opportunities-for-transatlantic-cooperation/. The program was introduced by David Kleimann, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, IIEL. The program was moderated by Joost Pauwelyn, Murase Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown Law and also a professor at the Graduate Institute of Geneva. The four panelists included Sabine Weyand, Director General, Directorate General for External Trade, European Commission; Jennifer Hillman, Professor from Practice, Georgetown Law, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations and a former member of the WTO Appellate Body; Thomas Graham, partner at Cassidy Levy Kent and former member and Chair of the WTO Appellate Body; and Henry Gao, Associate Professor of Law, Singapore Management University, Dongfang Scholar Chair Professor, Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade and Advisory Board Member of the WTO Chairs Program.

Ms. Weyand provided an overview of the European Commission’s revised trade policy paper, focusing on the Annex dealing with WTO reform. I had reviewed the revised policy paper in a prior post. See February 18, 2021, The European Commission’s 18 February 2021 Trade Policy Review paper and Annex — WTO reform and much more proposed, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/18/the-european-commissions-18-february-2021-trade-policy-review-paper-wto-reform-and-much-more-proposed/. Ms. Weyand’s comments expressed hope that early statements by the Biden Administration meant that there were many areas for possible cooperation, although she started with reviving the Appellate Body — an area where cooperation is more challenging. She articulated that the EU was looking for an early commitment by the Biden team that the U.S. supported a two-tiered, binding, independent dispute settlement system — that which was promised in the Dispute Settlement Understanding. She acknowledged that the U.S. had valid concerns including on overreach on some cases.

Ms. Weyand reviewed areas where collaboration had occurred during the Trump Administration — the joint consultations on subsidies, SOEs, forced technology transfer — and opined that the process should be taken back up. She also mentioned new areas where rules were needed, including Joint Statement Initiatives (electronic commerce where the U.S. is active and others where the U.S. is not) where there should be opportunities for collaboration. She viewed that open plurilaterals were the likely necessary option for reform with benefits limited to those participating. She acknowledged that WTO Members need to address how to make folding plurilaterals into the WTO easier to do. The EU supports the U.S. view that the Special and Differential Treatment provisions and approach don’t make sense in 2021 though the revised policy.

Jennifer Hillman, after the disclaimer that she is not part of the Biden Administration and hence doesn’t speak for them, agreed that the early pronouncements by the Biden team showed significant areas of likely cooperation on WTO reform between the U.S. and the EU based on its revised trade policy paper. She believed that the period of time for getting collaboration started and showing early results was short and that many of the topics for collaboration would require time, hence raising concerns about the ability to actually see forward movement. During her direct comments, Ms. Hillman focused on areas other than dispute settlement. She noted that the concept of sustainable development appeared to have different meanings depending on whom one was talking to. For Europe, it seemed to focus on environment whereas for the Biden Administration there is a heavier focus on labor rights whereas for many WTO Members (developing and least developed countries), the focus would be development. She viewed it as important for the EU to realize focus on labor by U.S. in seeking and obtaining collaboration on sustainable development. She agreed on areas of cooperation on gender equality and empowerment of women and girls, on having the WTO contribute to addressing climate change, including on border taxes that are WTO consistent, on plurilaterals and the need for change to how Special and Differential Treatment is addressed, and on the need for new (e-commerce) or revised rules (industrial subsidies).

Thomas Graham, as a former Appelate Body who had left after eight years at the end of 2019 (his and a colleague’s departure reduced the number of Appellate Body Member below the number needed to hear an appeal), believed that the problems with the dispute settlement system could not be easily addressed and would take significant time to resolve in a way that would address the underlying problems. He urged greater accountability by Appellate Body members. He noted in particular the tension between the second and third sentences of DSU 3.2 (as referenced as well in 19.2) where the bar to creating rights and obligations (important to the U.S.) was neutered by actions of the Appellate Body in clarifying existing provisions (historically the focus of the EU). Mr. Graham did not see an easy resolution to this problem without changing the language itself. He also reviewed the Appellate Body’s elimination in effect of Art. 17.6(ii) of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Antidumping Agreement or ADA), a provision intended to grant discretion to administering authorities in interpreting provisions of the Agreement which were capable of more than one interpretation. Mr. Graham noted that members of the Appellate Body viewed there being either no or very few situations where the Antidumping Agreement provisions would be capable of more than one interpretation. He also raised the question of how Members would deal with past decisions made by and principles adopted by the Appellate Body. He referenced a commentary by Amb. Dennis Shea (the Trump Administration Deputy U.S. Trade Representative in Geneva) posted on the CSIS website on March 9, 2021, “No Quick Fixes for WTO Dispute Settlement Reform” and indicated the questions raised in the paper needed to be addressed. See Center for Strategic & International Studies, No Quick Fixes for WTO Dispute Settlement Reform, March 9, 2021, https://www.csis.org/analysis/no-quick-fixes-wto-dispute-settlement-reform (article includes eight questions Amb. Shea believes the EU needs to answer as it thinks about WTO Dispute Settlement reform).

Mr. Gao provided his perspective on how the types of reform issues identified in the EC revised trade policy paper would be viewed by China, among others. Mr. Gao indicated that China has been unwilling to consider reforms which it views as discriminating against China. Thus, initiatives like the EU’s to start a plurilateral on competitive neutrality (SOEs, heavy subsidization, etc.) is viewed by China as aimed at them and hence will never be supported by China. China’s response has been to assert that there should be ownership neutrality (no special rules for SOEs or for differences in economic systems). China has participated in Joint Statement Initiatives where it does not view itself as targeted including e-commerce, domestic services regulation, investment for development, SMSEs, etc. China is supportive of restoration of the Appellate Body. On S&DT, China does not agree to a change in classification of Members but has agreed to take on responsibilities that it views as consistent with its level of development.

Observations

The above review is undoubtedly incomplete and doesn’t include the discussion during the question and answer portion., but hopefully provides enough of a summary to show large areas of agreement and some of caution between the U.S. and the EU. Both the EU and the US (under the Biden Administration) are putting a lot of focus on recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and both are interested in supporting global distribution of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics through COVAX, though there are short term issues in terms of supplies for national needs for both the U.S. and EU.

In general, the two U.S. panelists agreed with Ms. Weyand that there are areas where cooperation between the U.S. and the EU is possible and viewed the revised EC trade policy paper as helpful, particularly in terms of perceived movement by the EU on dispute settlement. Mr. Gao’s comments show that any reform will not likely be easy or quick because of the large differences in views of existing Members and the challenges posed by China’s economic system to global commerce since consensus decision making permits China to effectively derail multilateral solutions and it can opt not to participate in plurilaterals that it views as not in its interests.

While the U.S. and EU have each articulated the need to have unilateral response capabilities if solutions can’t be found through the WTO or bilaterally, the EU position (and likely Biden Administration position) is that cooperation should be sought between the U.S., EU and possibly others before unilateral actions are taken to permit coordination.

Much of the forward movement at the WTO on new rules is likely to be through plurilateral deals. The JSIs are generating most of the energy at the moment. India and South Africa have submitted a paper arguing that such plurilaterals area not proper under the WTO or require consensus (which doesn’t exist) to be included within the WTO. See February 20, 2021, Will India and South Africa (and others) prevent future relevance of the WTO?, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/02/20/will-india-and-south-africa-and-others-prevent-future-relevance-of-the-wto/. Ms. Weyand’s position was that the WTO will need to find ways to incorporate the plurilaterals into the WTO or action will happen outside of the WTO which cannot be beneficial to the WTO. In a post in recent days, I have argued that the U.S. should joint the JSIs that it is not a party to. See March 9, 2021, The Biden Administration should join the Joint Statement Initiatives that it is not presently party to, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2021/03/09/biden-administration-should-join-the-joint-statement-initiatives-that-it-is-not-presently-part-to/. The new Director-General has also put significant emphasis for obtaining forward movement in the JSIs. So despite the current importance of the JSIs, there are challenges to how much the U.S. and EU can achieve through plurilaterals within the WTO without changes to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, and Members will be divided on having WTO plurilaterals where benefits are limited to the parties vs. all Members (i.e., non-MFN, but open for later membership of non-participants).

On Dispute Settlement, the EU has stated that it understands the long-standing U.S. concerns that are bipartisan and reflected both in the Biden Administration and in Congress. While Ms. Weyand’s view is that the U.S. must signal that it accepts a two-tier, binding, independent dispute settlement system early for negotiations to move forward, the comments of Thomas Graham and the paper by Amb. Shea suggest that such an early commitment may be inappropriate. This would be true if the underlying problems laid out over the last years by the U.S. cannot be rectified satisfactorily under such a system — currently unknown as negotiations haven’t taken place.

Since the problems for the U.S. and others with the Appellate Body flow in part from an ineffective mechanism for Members to correct Appellate Body errors (i.e., the negotiating a clarification and/or Ministerial Conference/General Council adoption of an interpretation (Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO Art. IX:2)), reform of the dispute settlement will likely exceed review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding and procedures.

Ms. Hillman has suggested and Mr. Graham has supported Ms. Hillman’s proposal for a separate process for trade remedy or trade defense cases in light of the large number of cases in the area where there has been longstanding disagreement on Appellate Body decisions and because of the failure of the Appellate Body to respect Art. 17.6(ii) of the Antidumping Agreement.

In earlier posts, I had suggested some modifications to Amb. Walker’s 2019 draft General Council Decision that (1) would interpret both DSU Art. 3.2 and 19.2 and possibly deal with the tension Mr. Graham reviewed in his comment and that have led to much of the overreach problem; (2) would address ADA Art. 17.6(ii); and (3) would deal with past erroneous decisions. See July 12, 2020, WTO Appellate Body reform – revisiting thoughts on how to address U.S. concerns, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/07/12/wtos-appellate-body-reform-revisiting-thoughts-on-how-to-address-u-s-concerns/ (relevant section copied below; modifications are in bold and underlined).

‘Overreach’

As provided in Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU, findings and recommendations of Panels and the Appellate Body and recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements.   In a large number of Panel and Appellate Body reports, one or more parties and/or third parties have raised concerns about the Panel or Appellate Body adding to or diminishing the rights and obligations contrary to Articles 3.2 or 19.2 of the DSU.

To clarify situations where rights and obligations are being added to or diminished, Panels and the Appellate Body will not fill gaps in agreements, construe silence to indicate obligations or construe ambiguities in language of existing agreements to require a particular construction.  Any such actions by a Panel or by the Appellate Body is inconsistent with Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU.

Any party to an Appellate Body report that raised at the DSB meeting considering adoption of the Appellate Body report concerns about the creation of rights or obligations inconsistent with Articles 3.2 or 19.2, will have 90 days from the adoption of this General Council decision to request a review of the Appellate Body decision.  Such request will be for the limited purpose of having the Appellate Body determine whether on the specific issues raised where the party complained of creating rights or obligations the clarification of meaning provided in this General Council decision would result in a changed decision on the particular issue.  The Appellate Body will render decisions on all such requests within 90 days and will accept no additional briefing or argument from parties.  Where the report would have been different on one or more particular issues, it is sufficient for the Appellate Body to so indicate.  Where the same decision on an issue would have been made, the Appellate Body shall provide a detailed explanation.      

Panels and the Appellate Body shall interpret provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“antidumping agreement”) in accordance with Article 17.6(ii) of that Agreement.  Any party to an Appellate Body report that raised at the DSB meeting considering adoption of the Appellate Body report that Article 17.6(ii) was not applied in interpreting the antidumping agreement, will have 90 days from the adoption of this General Council decision to request a review of the Appellate Body decision.  Such a request will be for the limited purpose of having the Appellate Body determine whether a different outcome on one or more issues would have resulted had the Appellate Body applied Article 17.6(ii)  of the antidumping agreement.  The Appellate Body will render decisions on all such requests within 90 days and will accept no additional briefing or argument from parties.  Where the report would have been different on one or more particular issues, it is sufficient for the Appellate Body to so indicate.  Where the same decision on an issue would have been made, the Appellate Body shall provide a detailed explanation.       

There presumably are many other ways (and perhaps better ways) to deal with these issues, but the above suggests that solutions could be found that would support a two-tiered system. Perhaps, the EU proposal for what it needs from the U.S. early should be supplemented by an understanding that any such commitment assumes ability to address U.S. concerns meaningfully with a two-tier, binding, independent dispute settlement system.

Conclusion

Ms. Weyand’s statement was that cooperation between the U.S. and the EU was a necessary but not sufficient condition to a successful effort at WTO reform. The European Commission in its revised trade policy paper demonstrated some movement from prior positions that had made resolution of matters such as the impasse on the Appellate Body unlikely. Similarly, the Biden Administration has been indicating on a range of issues including environmental sustainability movement that makes a united front between the U.S. and EU more likely. Actions reported in the press in recent weeks show movement by both the U.S. and the EU to improve bilateral relations in the trade sphere. All are very promising signals.

But the path forward is complicated by a lack of common objectives with many third countries, including China. Hence, the correctness of the observation that U.S.-EU cooperation is necessary but not sufficient.

Programs like today’s IIEL program provide a useful opportunity for large numbers of members of the public to gain a better understanding of the possible road forward and challenges to be faced. All of the panelists (and moderator) did an excellent job. It will be interesting to see how the WTO responds in the coming months if the U.S. and EU can in fact mount a united front on reform.