Future measures to reduce trade restrictions on forest products should concentrate on two main areas:
· Consolidating and improving on the gains of the Uruguay Round in terms of reducing tariff barriers and controlling non-tariff measures.
· Focusing on ameliorating the "new" type of trade barriers emerging for forest products that were identified in the previous section.
The gains of the Uruguay Round in tariff reduction and binding tariff rates should continue to be promoted for the forest products trade. Future negotiations should concentrate on obtaining an agreement on complete tariff elimination in developed country markets of all tariffs on forest products. For developing countries, the aim should be at the minimum to ensure that import tariffs are bound as well as ensuring a gradual lowering of tariff rates as development and industrialization of the forest sector proceeds. For example, Republic of Korea's agreeing to the tariff elimination for pulp and paper imports should be the model for other newly industrializing countries that are emerging as major importers.
The formal agreements and commitments of the Uruguay Round should be employed to reduce the use of domestic measures and regulations in importing countries that have been used as non-tariff barriers to the forest products trade. In particular, the Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures and on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) could be used to distinguish legitimate versus discriminatory practices affecting the forest products trade, such as inspection, quarantine and treatment of imported goods that may contain pests or diseases, building codes, environmental standards, grading rules, product standards and packaging, labelling requirements and quality controls. In addition, the Agreements on Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures should be employed to control the use of these instruments in the forest products trade by tightening the criteria for their legitimate use.
However, the biggest challenge to the international community will lie in developing the agreements and guidelines for controlling the "new" forms of trade barriers to forest products discussed in Section 5. For some forms of trade restrictions, the existing GATT rules may be sufficient but need to be developed with the new barriers explicitly in mind. For the other "new" restrictions, additional mechanisms and rules may have to be developed under the auspices of the WTO or even separate international agreements.
For example, the use of export restrictions by developing countries to promote export-oriented domestic processing of wood and the use of environmental regulations of the forestry industry in developed countries that have trade implications, do require the development of additional agreements and guidelines to bring such policies within the realm of GATT rules. As with other GATT agreements, it is necessary to establish criteria for determining which of these measures are being legitimately employed or used deliberately for unfair trade advantage or discrimination. This is an area that must be examined by the new WTO as soon as possible.
Ironically, the WTO may also come under pressure to amend the GATT rules governing the use of quantitative restrictions or countervailing duties on imports of forest products that are believed to be "unsustainably" produced. Such pressure should be resisted, as it is likely to establish a "gray area" for a host of new barriers to the forest products trade as well as weakening the effectiveness of existing GATT agreements in controlling the application of quotas, regulations, quality measures, standards and anti-dumping and countervailing duties to forest product imports.
Finally, the pressure for importing countries to impose eco-labelling and certification schemes on the forest products trade is increasing. Such schemes may not necessarily function as trade barriers - provided that they are transparent and justified, are agreed mutually between trading partners or through multi-lateral negotiations, comply with GATT rule and conform with internationally recognized guidelines. However, there is increasing concern that current certification and product labelling schemes are not conforming to these criteria and thus have the potential of operating as formidable trade barriers. The new WTO should work with other international fora to ensure that the appropriate international criteria and standards for eco-labelling and certification are developed and that both unilateral and multi-lateral eco-labelling and certification schemes applied to the forest products trade conform to these criteria and guidelines.
