Trims

The Agreement on Trade Related Investment

Measures
• Introduction
• Provisions on elimination of notified TRIMs by
WTO Members, and transition periods
• Temporary deviation on BOP grounds
• India’s notified TRIMs
• Present Status
• Mandated Review of the Agreement
Investment Policy and Competition Policy
Likely issues during the review

INTRODUCTION

The Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) is one of

Agreements covered under Annex IA to the Marrakech Agreement, signed at
the end of the Uruguay Round (UR) negotiations. The Agreement addresses
investment measures that are trade related and that also violate Article III
(National treatment) or Article XI (general elimination of quantitative
restrictions) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. An illustrative
list of the measures that are violative of the provisions of the Agreement is
annexed to the text of the Agreement. These pertain broadly to local content
requirements, trade balancing requirements and export restrictions,
attached to investment decision making.

Provisions on elimination of notified TRIMs by WTO Members, and

transition periods

The Agreement requires all WTO Members to notify the TRIMs that are
inconsistent with the provisions of the Agreement, and to eliminate them
after the expiry of the transition period provided in the Agreement.
Transition periods of two years in the case of developed countries, five years
in the case of developing countries and seven years in the case of LDCs,
from the date of entry into force of the Agreement (i.e. 1st January 1995) are
provided in the Agreement.

Temporary deviation on BOP grounds

The Agreement allows developing countries to deviate temporarily from its
provisions on balance of payments (BOP) grounds (as per the provisions of
Article XVIII.B of GATT, 1994).

India’s notified TRIMs

As per the provisions of Art. 5.1 of the TRIMs Agreement India had notified
three trade related investment measures as inconsistent with the provisions
of the Agreement:

Local content (mixing) requirements in the production of News Print,

Local content requirement in the production of Rifampicin and Penicillin – G,

and

Dividend balancing requirement in the case of investment in 22 categories

consumer goods.

Such notified TRIMs were due to be eliminated by 31st December, 1999. None
of these measures is in force at present. Therefore, India does not have any
outstanding obligations under the TRIMs agreement as far as notified TRIMs
are concerned.

Present Status

The transition period allowed to developing countries ended on 31st

December, 1999. However, Art. 5.3 provides for extension of such transition
periods in the case of individual members, based on specific requests. In
such cases individual Members have to approach the Council for Trade in
Goods with justification based on their specific trade, financial and
development needs. Accordingly 9 developing countries (Malaysia, Pakistan,
Philippines, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Romania and Thailand) have
applied for extension of transition period in respect of certain TRIMs which
had been notified by them. Examination of their requests is underway in the
Council for Trade in Goods of WTO.

India had proposed during the Seattle Ministerial Conference that:

Extension of transition period for developing countries should be on a

multilateral basis and not on an individual basis;

Another opportunity should be provided to developing countries to notify un-

notified TRIMs and maintain them for an extended transition period;

The Seattle Ministerial Conference was inconclusive and no decision could be

taken on the proposals.
However, during the General Council meeting of 8th May, 2000, the following
decisions, inter-alia, were taken :

"…… ..members agree to direct the Council for Trade in Goods to give
positive consideration to individual requests presented in accordance with
Article 5.3 by developing countries for extension of transition periods for
implementation of the TRIMs Agreement".

"Members have noted the concerns of those Members who have not notified
TRIMs or have not yet requested an extension. Consultations on the means
to address these cases should also be pursued as a matter of priority, under
the aegis of the General Council, by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in
Goods".

Mandated Review of the Agreement

Art. 9 of the Agreement envisages its review within five years of its coming
into operation, i.e. by 1-1-2000.

The Council for Trade in Goods is to review the operation of the Agreement
and, as appropriate, propose to the Ministerial Conference amendments to
its text. The process of review has started but no specific proposals have
been made by any Member as yet.

Investment Policy and Competition Policy

In the course of this review, the Council for Trade in Goods shall consider
whether the Agreement should be complemented with the provisions on
investment policy and competition policy. The Singapore Ministerial
Conference which established the two parallel Working Groups to study the
relationship between Trade and Investment on the one hand and Trade and
Competition Policy on the other had stipulated that future negotiations, if
any, regarding multilateral disciplines in these areas will take place only after
explicit consensus decision by the Members. The Working Group process is
still on.

Likely issues during the review

The review of the Agreement is likely to address the following issues:

A. Issues related to the operation of the Agreement during the last five
years, and

B. Issues related to the coverage of the Agreement

A. Issues related to the operation of the Agreement

Art. 4 provides that a developing country Member shall be free to deviate

temporarily from the obligations arising out of this agreement to the extent
and in such a manner as Art. XVIII of GATT 1994, the Understanding on the
Balance of Payments Provisions of GATT 1994, and the Declaration on Trade
Measures Taken for Balance of Payments Purpose adopted on 28th
November, 1979. Issues related to operationalization of this provision would
be raised by developing countries;

The question of transition period of five years for developing countries has
ended before the review of the operation of the Agreement. The issue of
transition periods and the need for general exemption, rather than based on
individual request, is a matter of concern for developing countries;

Art. 5.3 which provides for request for extension of transition period on
individual basis, stipulates that such Members should demonstrate particular
difficulties in implementing the provisions of the Agreement. This leaves the
decision to the discretion of WTO Members. There is likely to be demand for
objective criteria;

The role of the Committee on Trade–Related Investment Measures has so far

been confined to monitoring the notification requirements. A changed role
could be considered.

B. Issues related to the coverage of the Agreement

The present agreement prohibits trade related investment measures that are
violative of Art. III and Art. XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Local content requirements, trade balancing requirements, and export
restrictions are prohibited. The efforts of developing countries would be to
reduce the prohibitions in view of the experience of these countries based on
the operation of the agreement. Developing countries (the Like Minded
Group) have submitted certain proposals in this regard in the context of
review of implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements.

The TRIMs Agreement has been found by the developing countries to be

standing in the way of sustained industrialization of developing countries,
without exposing them to balance of payment shocks, by reducing
substantially the policy space available to these countries.

Developed countries, on the other hand, have been arguing for a further
expansion in the list of prohibited TRIMs.

Department of Commerce welcomes

comments/suggestion related to the review of
 the TRIMs Agreement in the World Trade
Organization. Comments/suggestions may be
sent by e-mail to paugustine@ub.delhi.nic.in.

TRIPS
[Collapse]

Wikipedia has helped you -- now you can help Wikipedia.

$5,867,429
 Our Goal: $6 million

Donate Now »

Learn More...

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

TRIPS redirects here. For the new microprocessor design, see TRIPS
architecture. For the German racing driver, see Wolfgang Graf Berghe von
Trips

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an

international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets down
minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. It was negotiated at
the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994.

Specifically, TRIPS contains requirements that nations' laws must meet for: copyright rights,
including the rights of performers, producers of sound recordings and broadcasting
organizations; geographical indications, including appellations of origin; industrial designs;
integrated circuit layout-designs; patents; monopolies for the developers of new plant varieties;
trademarks; trade dress; and undisclosed or confidential information. TRIPS also specifies
enforcement procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution procedures. Protection and
enforcement of all intellectual property rights shall meet the objectives to contribute to the
promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the
mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive
to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

The TRIPS agreement introduced intellectual property law into the international trading system
for the first time and remains the most comprehensive international agreement on intellectual
property to date. In 2001, developing countries, concerned that developed countries were
insisting on an overly narrow reading of TRIPS, initiated a round of talks that resulted in the
Doha Declaration. The Doha declaration is a WTO statement that clarifies the scope of TRIPS,
stating for example that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the goal "to promote
access to medicines for all."

TRIPS has been criticized by the alter-globalization movement. Members of the movement
object, for example, to its consequences with regards to the AIDS pandemic in Africa.
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Background and history

• 2 The requirements of TRIPS
• 3 Controversy
o 3.1 Access to essential medicines
o 3.2 Software and business method patents
• 4 Implementation in developing countries
• 5 Post-TRIPs expansionism
• 6 Panel reports
• 7 See also
• 8 References

• 9 External links

[edit] Background and history

TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) in 1994. Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense lobbying by
the United States, supported by the European Union, Japan and other developed nations.
Campaigns of unilateral economic encouragement under the Generalized System of Preferences
and coercion under Section 301 of the Trade Act played an important role in defeating
competing policy positions that were favored by developing countries, most notably Korea and
Brazil, but also including Thailand, India and Caribbean Basin states. In turn, the United States
strategy of linking trade policy to intellectual property standards can be traced back to the
entrepreneurship of senior management at Pfizer in the early 1980s, who mobilized corporations
in the United States and made maximizing intellectual property privileges the number one
priority of trade policy in the United States (Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000, Chapter 7).

After the Uruguay round, the GATT became the basis for the establishment of the World Trade
Organization. Because ratification of TRIPS is a compulsory requirement of World Trade
Organization membership, any country seeking to obtain easy access to the numerous
international markets opened by the World Trade Organization must enact the strict intellectual
property laws mandated by TRIPS. For this reason, TRIPS is the most important multilateral
instrument for the globalization of intellectual property laws. States like Russia and China that
were very unlikely to join the Berne Convention have found the prospect of WTO membership a
powerful enticement.

Furthermore, unlike other agreements on intellectual property, TRIPS has a powerful

enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined through the WTO's dispute settlement
mechanism.

[edit] The requirements of TRIPS

TRIPS requires member states to provide strong protection for intellectual property rights. For
example, under TRIPS:

• Copyright terms must extend to 50 years after the death of the author,
although films and photographs are only required to have fixed 50 and to be
at least 25 year terms, respectively.(Art. 7(2),(4))
• Copyright must be granted automatically, and not based upon any
"formality", such as registrations or systems of renewal.
• Computer programs must be regarded as "literary works" under copyright
law and receive the same terms of protection.
• National exceptions to copyright (such as "fair use" in the United States) are
constrained by the Berne three-step test
• Patents must be granted in all "fields of technology," although exceptions for
certain public interests are allowed (Art. 27.2 and 27.3 [1]) and must be
enforceable for at least 20 years (Art 33).
• Exceptions to the exclusive rights must be limited, provided that a normal
exploitation of the work (Art. 13) and normal exploitation of the patent
(Art 30) is not in conflict.
• No unreasonably prejudice to the legitimate interests of the right holders of
computer programs and patents is allowed.
• Legitimate interests of third parties have to be taken into account by patent
rights (Art 30).
• In each state, intellectual property laws may not offer any benefits to local
citizens which are not available to citizens of other TRIPs signatories by the
principles of national treatment (with certain limited exceptions, Art. 3 and 5
[2]). TRIPS also has a most favored nation clause.

Many of the TRIPS provisions on copyright were imported from the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and many of its trademark and patent provisions were
imported from the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

[edit] Controversy
Since TRIPS came into force it has received a growing level of criticism from developing
countries, academics, and Non-governmental organizations. Some of this criticism is against the
WTO as a whole, but many advocates[who?] of trade liberalization also regard TRIPS as bad
policy. TRIPS' wealth redistribution effects (moving money from people in developing countries
to copyright and patent owners in developed countries) and its imposition of artificial scarcity on
the citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws, are a
common basis for such criticisms. It could be viewed however, that enforcing intellectual
property rights ensures incentive for innovation that trickles down from wealthy societies to
poorer ones, thus the agreement could be seen as a way of ensuring the improvement of quality
of life worldwide.

[edit] Access to essential medicines

The most visible conflict has been over AIDS drugs in Africa. Despite the role which patents
have played in maintaining higher drug costs for public health programs across Africa, this
controversy has not led to a revision of TRIPs. Instead, an interpretive statement, the Doha
Declaration, was issued in November 2001, which indicated that TRIPs should not prevent states
from dealing with public health crises. After Doha, PhRMA, the United States and to a lesser
extent other developed nations began working to minimize the effect of the declaration.

A 2003 agreement loosened the domestic market requirement, and allows developing countries
to export to other countries where there is a national health problem as long as drugs exported
are not part of a commercial or industrial policy [3]. Drugs exported under such a regime may be
packaged or colored differently to prevent them from prejudicing markets in the developed
world.

In 2003, the Bush administration also changed its position, concluding that generic treatments
might in fact be a component of an effective strategy to combat HIV. Bush created the PEPFAR
program, which received $15 billion from 2003-2007, and was reauthorized in 2007 for $30
billion over the next five years. Despite wavering on the issue of compulsory licensing, PEPFAR
began to distribute generic drugs in 2004-5.

[edit] Software and business method patents

Main article: Software patents under TRIPs Agreement

Another controversy has been over the TRIPS Article 27 requirements for patentability "in all
fields of technology", and whether or not this necessitates the granting of software and business
method patents.

[edit] Implementation in developing countries

The obligations under TRIPS apply equally to all member states, however developing countries
were allowed extra time to implement the applicable changes to their national laws, in two tiers
of transition according to their level of development. The transition period for developing
countries expired in 2005. The transition period for least developed countries was extended to
2016, and could be extended beyond that.

Developing countries are massive net-exporters of copyright-, patent- and trademark-related

royalties. It has therefore been argued that the TRIPS standard of requiring all countries to create
strict intellectual property systems will be detrimental to poorer countries' development.[4] Many
argue[who?] that it is, prima facie, in the strategic interest of most if not all underdeveloped nations
to use any flexibility available in TRIPS to write the weakest IP laws possible.[who?]

This has not happened in most cases. A 2005 report by the WHO found that many developing
countries have not incorporated TRIPS flexibilities (compulsory licensing, parallel importation,
limits on data protection, use of broad research and other exceptions to patentability, etc) into
their legislation to the extent authorized under Doha. [5]
This is likely caused by the lack of legal and technical expertise needed to draft legislation that
implements flexibilities, which has often led to developing countries directly copying developed
country IP legislation [6], or relying on technical assistance from the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO), which, some say[who?], encourages them to implement stronger intellectual
property monopolies.

[edit] Post-TRIPs expansionism

The requirements of TRIPS are, from a policy perspective, extremely stringent. Despite this,
lobbyists for the industries that benefit from various intellectual property laws have continued
since 1994 to campaign to strengthen existing forms of intellectual property and to create new
kinds:

• The creation of anti-circumvention laws to protect Digital Rights Management

systems. This was achieved through the 1996 World Intellectual Property
Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Treaty) and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty.
• The desire to further restrict the possibility of compulsory licenses for patents
has led to provisions in recent bilateral US trade agreements.
• It is one thing for states to have intellectual property laws on their statutes,
and another for governments to enforce them aggressively. This distinction
has led to provisions in bilateral agreements, as well as proposals for WIPO
and European Union rules on intellectual property enforcement. The 2001 EU
Copyright Directive was to implement the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty.
• The wording of Trips 27 of non-discrimination is used to justify an extension
of the patent system.
• The campaign for the creation of a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty that would give
broadcasters (and possibly webcasters) exclusive rights over the copies of
works they have distributed.

[edit] Panel reports

According to WTO 10th Anniversary, Highlights of the first decade, Annual Report 2005 page
142 [7], in the first ten years, 25 complaints have been lodged leading to the panel reports and
appellate body reports on TRIPS listed below.

The WTO website has a gateway to all TRIPS disputes (including those that did not lead to panel
reports) here [8].

• 2005 Panel Report [9]:

o European Communities - Protection of Trademarks and Geographical
Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs .
• 2000 Panel Report [10], Part 2 [11] and 2000 Appellate Body Report [12]:
o Canada - Term of Patent Protection.
• 2000 Panel Report, Part 1 [13] and Part 2 [14]:
o United States - Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.
• 2000 Panel Report [15]:
 o Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products.
• 2001 Panel Report [16] and 2002 Appellate Body Report [17]:
o United States - Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998.
• 1998 Panel Report [18]:
o India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products.
• 1998 Panel Report [19]:
o Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry.

[edit] See also

• Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
• Confusing similarity
• EU Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
• Geographical Indication
• Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China
• List of international trade topics
• List of parties to international copyright agreements
• Patent Law Treaty (PLT)
• Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT)
• Uruguay Round Agreement Act of the United States.

[edit] References
1. Braithwaite and Drahos, Global Business Regulation, Cambridge University
Press, 2000
2. Westkamp, 'TRIPS Principles, Reciprocity and the Creation of Sui-Generis-
Type Intellectual Property Rights for New Forms of Technology' [2003] 6(6)
The Journal of World Intellectual Property 827-859, ISSN: 1422-2213

[edit] External links

• World Trade Organization links
o World Trade Organization - Official Text
o World Trade Organization - TRIPs gateway
• Audio presentation by Professor Susan Sell, George Washington University,
on intellectual property rights in the global context.

[hide]
v • d • e

World Trade Organization

WTO System Accession and membership · Appellate Body · Dispute

 Settlement Body · International Trade Centre · Chronology
of WTO's key events

Criticism · Doha Development Round · Singapore issues ·

Issues
Quota Elimination · Peace Clause

Agriculture · General Agreement on Trade in Services ·

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ·
Agreements
Technical Barriers to Trade · Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights · Doha Declaration

Ministerial 1st (1996) · 2nd (1998) · 3rd (1999) · 4th (2001) · 5th
Conferences (2003) · 6th (2005)

Pascal Lamy (Director-General) · Supachai Panitchpakdi

(Former Director-General) · Deputy Directors-General:
People
Alejandro Jara · Valentine Rugwabiza · Harsha Singh ·
Rufus Yerxa

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-

Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights"
Categories: Intellectual property treaties | World Trade Organization | Copyright
treaties | Patent law | International trade | Business law | 1994 in law

Hidden category: Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases

Views

• Article
• Discussion
• Edit this page
• History

Personal tools

• Log in / create account

Navigation

• Main page
• Contents
 • Featured content
• Current events
• Random article

Search

Go Search

Interaction

• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help

Toolbox

• What links here

• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Cite this page

Languages

• Български
• Deutsch
• Ελληνικά
• Español
• Français
• िहनदी
• Italiano
• Nederlands
• 日本語
• Norsk (bokmål)
• Polski
• Português
• Suomi
• Svenska
• Українська
• 中文
• This page was last modified on 12 December 2008, at 01:30.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
(See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

Doha
[Collapse]
 “
”
Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité !
— Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR

(Thank you and bravo for your neutrality!)

Donate Now »

Learn More...

Doha Development Round

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Doha Round)

Jump to: navigation, search

The Doha Development Round started in 2001 and continues today.

The Doha Development Round is the current trade-negotiation round of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) which commenced in November 2001. Its objective is to lower trade
barriers around the world, which allows countries to increase trade globally. As of 2008, talks
have stalled over a divide on major issues, such as agriculture, industrial tariffs and non-tariff
barriers, services, and trade remedies.[1] The most significant differences are between developed
nations led by the European Union (EU), the United States (USA) and Japan and the major
developing countries led and represented mainly by India, Brazil, China and South Africa. There
is also considerable contention against and between the EU and the U.S. over their maintenance
of agricultural subsidies—seen to operate effectively as trade barriers.[2]

The Doha Round began with a ministerial-level meeting in Doha, Qatar in 2001. Subsequent
ministerial meetings took place in Cancún, Mexico (2003), and Hong Kong (2005). Related
negotiations took place in Geneva, Switzerland (2004, 2006, 2008); Paris, France (2005); and
Potsdam, Germany (2007).

The most recent round of negotiations, July 23-29 2008, broke down after failing to reach a
compromise on agricultural import rules.[3] Major negotiations are not expected to resume until
2009.[4]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Negotiations
o 1.1 Before Doha
o 1.2 Doha, 2001
o 1.3 Cancún, 2003
 1.3.1 Collapse of negotiations
o 1.4 Geneva, 2004
o 1.5 Paris, 2005
o 1.6 Hong Kong, 2005
o 1.7 Geneva, 2006
o 1.8 Potsdam, 2007
o 1.9 Geneva, 2008
 1.9.1 Collapse of negotiations
• 2 Current progress
• 3 Issues
o 3.1 Agriculture
o 3.2 Access to patented medicines
o 3.3 Special and differential treatment
o 3.4 Implementation issues
• 4 Benefits
• 5 References

• 6 External links

[edit] Negotiations
Doha Round talks are overseen by the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), whose chair is
WTO’s director-general, which is currently Pascal Lamy. The negotiations are being held in five
working groups and in other, existing bodies in the WTO. Selected topics under negotiation are
discussed below in five groups: market access, development issues, WTO rules, trade
facilitation, and other issues.[1].

[edit] Before Doha

Before the Doha Ministerial, negotiations had already been underway on trade in agriculture and
trade in services. These on-going negotiations had been required under the last round of
multilateral trade negotiations (the Uruguay Round, 1986-1994). However, some countries,
including the United States, wanted to expand the agriculture and services talks to allow trade-
offs and thus achieve greater trade liberalization.[1]

The first WTO Ministerial Conference, which was held in Singapore in 1996, established
permanent working groups on four issues: transparency in government procurement, trade
facilitation (customs issues), trade and investment, and trade and competition. These became
known as the Singapore issues. These issues were pushed at successive Ministerials by the
European Union, Japan and Korea, and opposed by most developing countries.[1] Since no
agreement was reached, the developed nations pushed that any new trade negotiations must
include these issues.[5]

The negotiations were intended to start at the Ministerial Conference of 1999 in Seattle, United
States and be called the the Millennium Round but due to several different events including large
protests that broke outside the conference, the negotiations were never started.[6] Due to the
failures of the Millennium Round, it was decided that negotiations would not start again until the
next Ministerial Conference in 2001 in Doha, Qatar.

Just months before the Doha Ministerial, the United States had been attacked by terrorists on
September 11, 2001. Some government officials called for greater political cohesion and saw the
trade negotiations as a means toward that end. Some officials thought that a new round of
multilateral trade negotiations could help a world economy weakened by recession and
terrorism-related uncertainty. According to the WTO, the year 2001 showed “...the lowest
growth in output in more than two decades,”[7] and world trade contracted that year.[1]

[edit] Doha, 2001

Main article: WTO Ministerial Conference of 2001

The Doha Round of WTO negotiations began in November 2001. The new round was instead
launched at a ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar. The new trade agenda of the developed
world was dubbed the Doha Development Agenda and, from there, all countries were committed
to negotiations opening agricultural and manufacturing markets, as well as trade-in-services
(GATS) negotiations and expanded intellectual property regulation (TRIPS). The intent of the
round, according to its proponents, was to make trade rules fairer for developing countries.[8]
Opponents charged that the round would expand a system of trade rules that were bad for
development and interfered excessively with countries' domestic "policy space".[citation needed]
The round was set to be concluded in four years in December 2005 — after two more ministerial
conferences had produced a final draft declaration.

[edit] Cancún, 2003

Main article: WTO Ministerial Conference of 2003

The 2003 Cancún talks—intended to forge concrete agreement on the Doha round objectives—
collapsed after four days during which the members could not agree on a framework to continue
negotiations. Low key talks continued since the ministerial meeting in Doha but progress was
almost non-existent.[9] This meeting was intended to create a framework for further negotiations.

[edit] Collapse of negotiations

The Cancun Ministerial collapsed for several reasons. First, differences over the Singapore issues
seemed irresolvable. The EU had retreated on some of its demands, but several developing
countries refused any consideration of these issues at all. Second, it was questioned whether
some countries had come to Cancun with a serious intention to negotiate. In the view of some
observers, a few countries showed no flexibility in their positions and only repeated their
demands rather than talk about trade-offs. Third, the wide difference between developing and
developed countries across virtually all topics was a major obstacle. The U.S.-EU agricultural
proposal and that of the Group of 20, for example, show strikingly different approaches to
special and differential treatment. Fourth, there was some criticism of procedure. Some claimed
the agenda was too complicated. Also, Cancun Ministerial chairman, Mexico’s Foreign Minister
Luis Ernesto Derbez, was faulted for ending the meeting when he did, instead of trying to move
the talks into areas where some progress could have been made. [1]

The collapse seemed like a victory for the developing countries.[10] The failure to advance the
round resulted in a serious loss of momentum and brought into question whether the January 1,
2005 deadline would be met.[1] The North-South divide was most prominent on issues of
agriculture. Developed countries’ farm subsidies (both the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy
and the U.S. government agro-subsidies) became a major sticking point. The developing
countries were seen as finally having the confidence to reject a deal that they viewed as
unfavorable. This is reflected by the new trade bloc of developing and industrialized nations: the
G20. Since its creation, the G20 has had fluctuating membership, but is spearheaded by the G4
(the People's Republic of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa). While the G20 presumes to
negotiate on behalf of all of the developing world, many of the poorest nations continue to have
little influence over the emerging WTO proposals.

[edit] Geneva, 2004

The aftermath of Cancun was one of standstill and stocktaking. Negotiations were suspended for
the remainder of 2003. Starting in early 2004, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick pushed
for the resumption of negotiations by offering a proposal that would focus on market access,
including an elimination of agricultural export subsidies.[1] He also said that the Singapore issues
could progress by negotiating on trade facilitation, considering further action on government
procurement, and possibly dropping investment and competition.[11] This intervention was
credited at the time with reviving interest in the negotiations, and negotiations resumed in March
2004.[1]

In the months leading up to the talks in Geneva, the EU accepted the elimination of agricultural
export subsidies “by date certain.” The Singapore issues were moved off the Doha agenda.
Compromise was also achieved over the negotiation of the Singapore issues as the EU and others
decided. Developing countries too played an active part in negotiations this year, first by India
and Brazil negotiating directly with the developed countries (as the so-called “non-party of five”)
on agriculture, and second by working toward acceptance of trade facilitation as a subject for
negotiation. [12]

With these issues pushed aside, the negotiators in Geneva were able to concentrate on moving
forward with the Doha Round. After intense negotiations in late July 2004, WTO members
reached what has become known as the Framework Agreement(sometimes called the July
Package) , which provides broad guidelines for completing the Doha round negotiations. The
agreement contains a 4-page declaration, with four annexes (A-D) covering agriculture, non-
agricultural market access, services, and trade facilitation, respectively. In addition, the
agreement acknowledges the activities of other negotiating groups (such as those on rules,
dispute settlement, and intellectual property) and exhorts them to fulfill their Doha round
negotiating objectives. The agreement also abandoned the January 1, 2005 deadline for the
negotiations and set December 2005 as the date for the 6th Ministerial to be held in Hong Kong.
[12]

[edit] Paris, 2005

Trade negotiators wanted to make tangible progress before the December 2005 WTO meeting in
Hong Kong, and held a session of negotiations in Paris in May 2005.[13]

Paris talks were hanging over a few issues: France protested moves to cut subsidies to farmers,
while the U.S., Australia, the EU, Brazil and India failed to agree on issues relating to chicken,
beef and rice.[13] Most of the sticking points were small technical issues, making trade negotiators
fear that agreement on large politically risky issues will be substantially harder.[13]

[edit] Hong Kong, 2005

The Hong Kong Convention Center, which was the site of the Sixth WTO Ministerial
Conference

Main article: WTO Ministerial Conference of 2005

The Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference took place in Hong Kong, December 13 to 18, 2005.
Although a flurry of negotiations took place in the fall of 2005, WTO Director-General Pascal
Lamy announced in November 2005 that a comprehensive agreement on modalities would not be
forthcoming in Hong Kong, and that the talks would “take stock” of the negotiations and would
try to reach agreements in negotiating sectors where convergence was reported.[1]

Trade ministers representing most of the world's governments reached a deal that sets a deadline
for eliminating subsidies of agricultural exports by 2013. The final declaration from the talks,
which resolved several issues that have stood in the way of a global trade agreement, also
requires industrialized countries to open their markets to goods from the world's poorest nations,
a goal of the United Nations for many years. The declaration gave fresh impetus for negotiators
to try to finish a comprehensive set of global free trade rules by the end of 2006. Pascal Lamy,
Director General of the WTO, said, "I now believe it is possible, which I did not a month ago."[14]

The conference pushed back the expected completion of the round until the end of 2006. [1]

[edit] Geneva, 2006

The July 2006 talks in Geneva failed to reach an agreement about reducing farming subsidies
and lowering import taxes, and continuation of the negotiations will take months to resume. A
successful outcome of the Doha round has become increasingly unlikely, because the broad trade
authority granted under the Trade Act of 2002 to U.S. president George W. Bush were set to
expire in 2007. Any trade pact will then have to be approved by the U.S. Congress with the
possibility of amendments, which creates an additional burden on the U.S. negotiators and
decreases the willingness of other countries to participate.[2] Hong Kong offered to mediate the
collapsed trade liberalisation talks. Director-General of Trade and Industry, Raymond Young,
says the territory, which hosted the last round of Doha negotiations, has a "moral high-ground"
on free trade that allows it to play the role of "honest broker".

[edit] Potsdam, 2007

In June 2007, negotiations within the Doha round broke down at a conference in Potsdam, as a
major impasse occurred between the US, the EU, India and Brazil. The main disagreement was
over opening up agricultural and industrial markets in various countries and also how to cut rich
nation farm subsidies.[15]

[edit] Geneva, 2008

On July 21, 2008, negotiations started again at the WTO's HQ in Geneva on the Doha round but
stalled after nine days of negotiations over the refusal to compromise over the special safeguard
mechanism.
Negotiations had continued since the last conference in June 2007.[16] Pascal Lamy, WTO’s
director-general, said before the start of the conference, the odds of success were over 50%.[17]
Around 40 ministers attended the negotiations, which were only expected to last five days but
instead lasted nine days. Kamal Nath, India's Commerce Minister, was absent from the first few
days of the conference due to a vote of confidence being conducted in India's Parliament.[18] On
the second day of the conference, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab announced that the
U.S. would cap its farm subsidies at $15 billion a year[19], from $18.2 billion in 2006.[20] The
proposal was on the condition that countries such as Brazil and India drop their objections to
various aspects of the round.[19] The U.S. and the EU also offered an increase in the number of
temporary work visas for professional workers.[21] After one week of negotiations, many
considered agreement to be 'within reach'. However, there were disagreements on issues
including special protection for Chinese and Indian farmers and African and Caribbean banana
imports to the EU.[22] India and China's hard stance regarding tariffs and subsidies was severely
criticized by the United States.[23] In response, India's Commerce Minister said "I'm not risking
the livelihood of millions of farmers."[24]

[edit] Collapse of negotiations

The negotiations collapsed on July 29 over issues of agricultural trade between the United States,
India, and China.[25] In particular, there was insoluble disagreement between India and the United
States over special safeguard mechanism (SSM), a measure designed to protect poor farmers by
allowing countries to impose a special tariff on certain agricultural goods in the event of an
import surge or price fall.[26]

Pascal Lamy said, "Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."[3] He also
said that out of a to-do list of 20 topics, 18 had seen positions converge but the gaps could not
narrow on the 19th — the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries. The
mechanism allows countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on imports of specified
goods, if the price of those goods drop or there is a surge in imports. However, the United States,
China and India could not agree on the threshold that would allow the mechanism to be used,
with the United States arguing that the threshold had been set too low. The European Union
Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson characterized the collapse as a "collective failure".[27] On a
more optimistic note, India's Commerce Minister, Kamal Nath, said "I would only urge the
Director-General [of the WTO] to treat this [failure of talks] as a pause, not a breakdown, to keep
on the table what is there."[26]

Several countries blamed each other for the breakdown of the negotiations.[28] The United States
and some European Union members blamed India for the failure of the talks.[29]India claimed that
its position was supported by over 100 countries.[30] Brazil, one of the founding members of the
G-20, broke away from the position held by India.[31] The EU's Peter Mandelson said that India
and China should not be blamed for the failure of the Doha round.[32] In his view, the agriculture
talks had been harmed by the five-year program of agricultural subsidies recently passed by the
US Congress, which he said was "one of the most reactionary farm bills in the history of the
US".[25]

[edit] Current progress

Several countries have called for negotiations to start again. Brazil and Pascal Lamy have led this
process. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, called several countries leaders to urge
them to renew negotiations.[33] Lamy visited India to discuss possible solutions to the impasse. [34]

[edit] Issues
Agriculture has become the linchpin of the agenda for both developing and developed countries.
Three other issues have been important. The first, now resolved, pertained to compulsory
licensing of medicines and patent protection. A second deals with a review of provisions giving
special and differential treatment to developing countries; a third addresses problems that
developing countries are having in implementing current trade obligations.[1]

[edit] Agriculture

Agriculture has become the most important and controversial issue. The first proposal in Qatar,
in 2001, called for the end agreement to commit to substantial improvements in market access;
reductions (and ultimate elimination) of all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions
in trade-distorting support.”[1][35]

The United States is being asked by the European Union (EU) and the developing countries, led
by Brazil and India, to make a more generous offer for reducing trade-distorting domestic
support for agriculture. The United States is insisting that the EU and the developing countries
agree to make more substantial reductions in tariffs and to limit the number of import-sensitive
and special products that would be exempt from cuts. Import-sensitive products are of most
concern to developed countries like the European Union, while developing countries are
concerned with special products — those exempt from both tariff cuts and subsidy reductions
because of development, food security, or livelihood considerations. Brazil has emphasized
reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies, especially by the United States (some of which
it successfully challenged in the WTO U.S.-Brazil cotton dispute), while India has insisted on a
large number of special products that would not be exposed to wider market opening.[2]

[edit] Access to patented medicines

A major topic at the Doha Ministerial regarded the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The issue involves the balance of interests between the
pharmaceutical companies in developed countries that held patents on medicines and the public
health needs in developing countries. Before the Doha meeting, the United States claimed that
the current language in TRIPS was flexible enough to address health emergencies, but other
countries insisted on new language.[1]

On August 30, 2003, WTO members reached agreement on the TRIPS and medicines issue.
Voting in the General Council, member governments approved a decision that offered an interim
waiver under the TRIPS Agreement allowing a member country to export pharmaceutical
products made under compulsory licenses to least-developed and certain other members.[1]
[edit] Special and differential treatment

In the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the trade ministers reaffirmed special and differential
(S&D) treatment for developing countries and agreed that all S&D treatment provisions “...be
reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and
operational.”[1][35]

The negotiations have been split along a developing-country/developed-country divide.

Developing countries wanted to negotiate on changes to S&D provisions, keep proposals
together in the Committee on Trade and Development, and set shorter deadlines. Developed
countries wanted to study S&D provisions, send some proposals to negotiating groups, and leave
deadlines open. Developing countries claimed that the developed countries were not negotiating
in good faith, while developed countries argued that the developing countries were unreasonable
in their proposals. At the December 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial, members agreed to five S&D
provisions for LDCs, including the tariff-free and quota-free access.[1]

[edit] Implementation issues

Developing countries claim that they have had problems with the implementation of the
agreements reached in the earlier Uruguay Round because of limited capacity or lack of technical
assistance. They also claim that they have not realized certain benefits that they expected from
the Round, such as increased access for their textiles and apparel in developed-country markets.
They seek a clarification of language relating to their interests in existing agreements.[1]

Before the Doha Ministerial, WTO Members resolved a small number of these implementation
issues. At the Doha meeting, the Ministerial Declaration directed a two-path approach for the
large number of remaining issues: (a) where a specific negotiating mandate is provided, the
relevant implementation issues will be addressed under that mandate; and (b) the other
outstanding implementation issues will be addressed as a matter of priority by the relevant WTO
bodies. Outstanding implementation issues are found in the area of market access, investment
measures, safeguards, rules of origin, and subsidies and countervailing measures, among others.
[1]

[edit] Benefits
All countries participating in the negotiations believe that there is some economic benefit in
adopting the agreement; however, there is considerable disagreement of how much benefit the
agreement would actually produce. A study by the University of Michigan found that if all trade
barriers in agriculture, services, and manufactures were reduced by 33% as a result of the Doha
Development Agenda, there would be an increase in global welfare of $574.0 billion.[36] Some
studies present a more modest outcome predicting world net welfare gains ranging from $84
billion to $287 billion by the year 2015,[1][37] others up to $3000 billion per year.[38]

[edit] References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Fergusson, Ian F. (2008-01-18). "World Trade
Organization Negotiations: The Doha Development Agenda" (PDF).
Congressional Research Service.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32060.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-07-26.
2. ^ a b c Hanrahan, Charles; Randy Schnepf (2007-01-22). "WTO Doha Round:
The Agricultural Negotiations" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33144.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-07-20.
3. ^ a b "World trade talks end in collapse", BBC News (2008-07-29). Retrieved
on 29 July 2008.
4. ^ Beattie, Alan (2008-07-31). "Hangovers but no anger on the morning after",
Financial Times. Retrieved on 2 August 2008.
5. ^ "Tequila sunset in Cancún", The Economist (2003-09-17). Retrieved on 3
August 2008.
6. ^ Elliott, Larry; John Vidal (1999-12-04). "Week of division on and off streets",
The Guardian. Retrieved on 20 August 2008.
7. ^ "Annual Report 2002" (PDF). World Trade Organization.
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep02_chp_2_e.pdf.
Retrieved on 2008-07-31.
8. ^ "Emergency Committee For American Trade".
http://www.ecattrade.com/issues/subsection.asp?id=1.
9. ^ "The Cancun challenge", The Economist (2003-09-04). Retrieved on 3
August 2008.
10.^ "Cancún's charming outcome", The Economist (2003-09-18). Retrieved on
3 August 2008.
11.^ Williams, Frances (2004-04-30). "Zoellick to host 'select' dinner in attempt
to meet Doha round target", Financial Times. Retrieved on 4 August 2008.
12.^ a b Fergusson, Ian; Charles E. Hanrahan, William H. Cooper and Danielle J.
Langton (2005-02-10). "The Doha Development Agenda: The WTO Framework
Agreement" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32645.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-08-11.
13.^ a b c "Q&A: World trade in crisis", BBC News (2005-04-04). Retrieved on 20
July 2008.
14.^ Bradsher, Keith (2005-12-19). "Trade Officials Agree to End Subsidies for
Agricultural Exports", New York Times. Retrieved on 21 August 2008.
15.^ Palmer, Doug; Laura MacInnis (2007-06-21). "G4 talks collapse, throw trade
round into doubt" (in English), Reuters. Retrieved on 20 July 2008.
16.^ "Defrosting Doha" (in English), The Economist (2008-07-17). Retrieved on
20 July 2008.
17.^ "Remember Doha?", The Economist (2008-07-17). Retrieved on 20 July
2008.
18.^ Beattie, Alan (2008-07-21). "Expectations low as Doha talks begin",
Financial Times. Retrieved on 22 July 2008.
19.^ a b Palmer, Doug; William Schomberg (2008-07-22). "U.S. offers farm
subsidy cut but is asked for more". Reuters.
http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/noticias/noticias/668858/07/08/US-offers-
farm-subsidy-cut-but-is-asked-for-more.html. Retrieved on 2008-07-22.
 20.^ Schnepf, Randy; Womach Jasper (2007-04-26). "Potential Challenges to
U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33697.pdf. Retrieved on 22
July 2008.
21.^ Beattie, Alan (2008-08-27). "Visa offer adds to Doha momentum", Financial
Times. Retrieved on 28 July 2008.
22.^ Beattie, Alan (2008-07-28). "US says China, India put trade talks in
jeopardy" (in English), Financial Times. Retrieved on 28 July 2008.
23.^ "Bad tempers flare, threatening WTO deal", AFP (2008-07-28). Retrieved on
28 July 2008.
24.^ Dickson, David M. (2008-07-30). "Farm tariffs sink world trade talks",
Washington Times. Retrieved on 30 July 2008.
25.^ a b Alan, Beattie; Frances William (2008-07-29). "Doha trade talks collapse",
Financial Times. Retrieved on 29 July 2008.
26.^ a b "Dismayed powers plea to salvage WTO talks", AFP (2008-07-30).
Retrieved on 30 July 2008.
27.^ " Dismay at collapse of trade talks", BBC News, 30 July 2008
28.^ Voice of America News 30 July, 2008
29.^ Times Online, London, 30 July 2008
30.^ Guardian - Doha: India accuses US of sacrificing world's poor at trade talks
Heather Stewart in Geneva, 31 July 2008
31.^ Wheatley, Jonathan (2008-08-04). "Collapse of Doha forces acceptance of
second best Collapse of Doha forces acceptance of second best", Financial
Times. Retrieved on 11 August 2008.
32.^ NDTV Profit, India 30 July 2008
33.^ Wheatley, Jonathan (2008-08-03). "Brazil to dispute US subsidies",
Financial Times. Retrieved on 11 August 2008.
34.^ "World Diary: August 11 - August 17", Financial Times. Retrieved on 11
August 2008.
35.^ a b "Ministerial declaration". World Trade Organization. 2001-11-14.
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm.
Retrieved on 2008-07-26.
36.^ Brown, Drusilla K.; Alan V. Deardorff and Robert M. Stern (December 8,
2002) (PDF). Computational Analysis of Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the
Uruguay Round and Doha Development Round. School of Public Policy. The
University of Michigan..
http://fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r489.pdf.
37.^ Hertel, Thomas W.; Roman Keeney (2005). "What is at Stake: The Relative
Importance of Import Barriers, Export Subsidies and Domestic Support" (in
English) (PDF). World Bank.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRADERESEARCH/Resources/Ch2AgTra
deBook_HertelKeeney.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-07-29.
38.^ Kym Anderson and Bjørn Lomborg, Free Trade, Free Labor, Free Growth,
Project Syndicate May, 2008

[edit] External links

• World Trade Organization's official site on the Doha Round
• WTO current news site
 • Ideas for Development- blog of heads of International Development Agencies
including Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO, and Supachaï
Panitchpakdi, former Director-General, now Secretary-General of UNCTAD.

[hide]
v • d • e

World Trade Organization

Accession and membership · Appellate Body · Dispute

WTO System Settlement Body · International Trade Centre · Chronology
of WTO's key events

Criticism · Doha Development Round · Singapore issues ·

Issues
Quota Elimination · Peace Clause

Agriculture · General Agreement on Trade in Services ·

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ·
Agreements
Technical Barriers to Trade · Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights · Doha Declaration

Ministerial 1st (1996) · 2nd (1998) · 3rd (1999) · 4th (2001) · 5th
Conferences (2003) · 6th (2005)

Pascal Lamy (Director-General) · Supachai Panitchpakdi

(Former Director-General) · Deputy Directors-General:
People
Alejandro Jara · Valentine Rugwabiza · Harsha Singh ·
Rufus Yerxa

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round"

Categories: World Trade Organization | Diplomatic conferences

Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced
statements since August 2008

Views

• Article
• Discussion
 • Edit this page
• History

Personal tools

• Log in / create account

Navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article

Search

Go Search

Interaction

• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help

Toolbox

• What links here

• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Cite this page

Languages

• ‫العربية‬
• Български
• Català
• Deutsch
• Español
• Français
• 日本語
• Português
• 中文

• This page was last modified on 11 December 2008, at 23:13.

• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
(See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers