由于信息与通信技术（ICT）行业的案件直指标准化过程中“潜底或隐藏”专利对竞争产生的影响，并诉诸美国联邦贸易委员会。虽然最近国际标准化机构已采取一些应对措施，但仍有很多国家目前在这一领域面临困境。2005年中国请求WTO技术性贸易壁垒委员会调查并解决专利与标准之间的交错问题，包括专利和其它知识产权是否会构成技术性贸易壁垒。世界知识产权组织（WIPO）专利常务委员会的成员也呼吁对这一议题进行更深入的研究。

 
在对软件的专利、版权保护与标准之间关联的分析上，该文章试从标准制定、生产和贸易提供三个角度提供更清晰的视角，谈及了专利与技术标准之争议缘由，并从中国的案例对专利、标准和贸易表示了忧虑，最后提出若干政策选项供参考。

 
国际标准制定

 
WTO鼓励成员使用自愿性国际标准作为强制性技术标准的基础，并在其能力所及范围内参加国际标准制定组织。对于一套给定标准制定机构制定的技术规范，会有多种技术适用，而很多存在标准的领域往往是专利密集的，特别是在高科技领域如信息和通讯技术、电子产品等。。 在标准制定过程中，所有私营参与方都会自然而然地在新标准中尽可能多地纳入他们控制或使用的技术或操作。

 
制造

 
在生产过程中专利与标准之间的问题包括繁琐的专利使用许可程序、法律的不确定性、专利使用费过高或具攻击性以致很多情况下几乎等同于拒绝交易、以及差别定价。当标准由为数不多的具有高度市场控制能力的生产商占有，成了封闭（或受控制的）标准时，相关技术的专利所有人就可能区别对待被许可人，采取攻击性收费或区别收费。这会影响成本分配和价格并能最终决定销售业绩和能否取得商业成功，从而会干扰商业计划和生产。

 
为了取得专利使用费，很多公司专门从事研发与现有或未来标准相吻合的可以获得专利的发明。这种行为使“专利丛林”（即密集专利活动的领域）现象雪上加霜，并加重了专利与标准的交错。当存在诸多专利所有人，要使用某种资源必须得到每个专利所有人的许可时，就会出现“反公共地悲剧”（即无法使用公共物品）。知识产权之泛滥很有可能造成资源无法得到充分利用、创新受到遏制、生产过程减慢。

 
国际贸易

 
根据WTO的研究，“标准化程度趋高的技术部门往往是专利密集和出口密集的”。这一方面暗示了标准化和专利之间的高度关联，另一方面也显示出标准对制造和国际贸易的下游控制。有能力制定国家或国际标准的厂商就可以在新标准中纳入他们的方法、操作和技术，从而实现较低的交易和生产成本，加大对谁生产、谁贸易的控制。因此无论是谁，只要可以设立标准就能获取通往国际市场的便利。这对很多发展中国家的企业而言，达到国际标准本身已经相当困难，而为获取标准所需相关技术的使用权而必须履行的复杂而繁琐的许可程序则使他们更难参与国际贸易。在这种环境下，标准制定过程的特征就是政治与经济竞争，所有公司都在为争取未来标准的领导地位而欺诈。专利只是为获取这种不公平的优势而被滥用的工具之一。

 
中国案例

 
DVD机的案例表明标准可在极大程度上影响谁可以生产、谁可以贸易并最终谁可以获得经济利益。根据《中国日报》的报导，中国DVD机制造商为包括这种技术在内的各种标准所付的版税占生产成本的20％到50％。某些型号DVD机的版税甚至高达50％。这些花费对中国生产商的最大化利润的能力提出了挑战。

 
为了应对这些挑战，中国着手实施平行战略。该战略包括以低成本的本国技术或经改良适应本国实际情况的技术为基础制定国内标准。中国电子技术标准化研究所的一份文件中指出：“中国被迫制定自有标准完全是因为发达国家过分使用非关税贸易壁垒（包括使用知识产权），中国不得不改变自己的立场从防守转为攻击。我们需要使用专利体系促进自己的技术进步。只有拥有自己的知识产权，我们才能克服发达国家设立的技术壁垒。”这项战略在发展中国家中是前所未有的，目标是使中国成为“创新社会”。中国与其他发展中国家的最大区别在于它拥有巨大的市场，有助于实现这种宏伟目标。

 
中国的第二个战略体现在向WTO的TBT委员会提交的两份交流文件中。这些文件阐明了标准与专利问题的实质、对国际贸易的影响、该领域的主要国际参与者以及当专利和标准存在交错时必须找到一个均衡点。中国已经建议成员利用每三年一次对TBT协定的审议制定恰当的方法和政策促进国际标准的发展和执行，同时也是为了TBT协定本身得以有效实施。

 
最后，发达国家的政府和业界以及主要的标准制定组织需重视中国进一步融入国际标准社会，并采取更加合作的态度。
本文由张蔚蔚翻译，管仅编辑。
 
查看英文版本，请点击此处。

Esto a su vez se inserta en un contexto internacional donde la agenda de la Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC) y los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio que se multiplican alrededor del mundo, intentan definir el rumbo y la dinámica de los intercambios comerciales entre las regiones y países.

Frente a la OMC y estos procesos de liberación comercial, los Acuerdos Multilaterales de Medio Ambiente (AMUMA) plantean retos y desafíos en la medida que las posiciones de los países desarrollados-orientadas a incrementar niveles y estándares de protección ambiental -se contraponen a la posición de los países en desarrollo que encuentran en estos mismos Acuerdos algunos escollos (por ejemplo en el ámbito laboral, productivo y comercial) que se perciben como limitantes para las posibilidades de progreso social y económico.

Dentro de la OMC, entre los múltiples temas que se abordan y, especialmente como parte de la Ronda de Doha, se encuentra precisamente, cómo compatibilizar la necesidad de promover un crecimiento económico en el tiempo (muchas veces presionando sobre el ambiente y los recursos naturales) al mismo tiempo que se mantienen o mejoran niveles de protección ambiental que permitan el mantenimiento de los sistemas ecológicos y, en general, un medio saludable para los seres humanos.

El trabajo de Jaime García “Hacia una Lista Potencial de Bienes Ambientales para Sudamérica: Criterios para una Perspectiva de Desarrollo Sostenible”, ofrece un análisis bastante pormenorizado de una de las variables más controvertidas dentro de los debates internacionales al interior de la OMC y otros foros. A saber, cómo entender la noción de “bienes ambientales” de manera que permita a los países en desarrollo- especialmente a los países andinos -posicionarse mejor en estas discusiones y sacar ventaja de un hecho incontrastable: una riqueza en términos de biodiversidad a nivel de ecosistemas, especies y recursos genéticos. Paradójicamente, esta enorme riqueza contrasta con niveles de pobreza alarmantes en estos países que inciden en una continua degradación ambiental y la disminución de la calidad de vida en general.

García describe claramente cómo los países desarrollados han logrado (con matices) definir y precisar lo que son bienes ambientales y plantear para ellos, por ejemplo, la eliminación de aranceles. Estos países entienden claramente las implicancias de diferenciar entre definiciones tradicionales de “bienes ambientales” (donde tienen ventajas en las negociaciones internacionales) que incluyen la gestión de la contaminación, la generación de tecnologías limpias y métodos de producción más eficientes y definiciones más amplias que podrían incluir productos ambientales tales como fibras controles biológicos, productos no maderables del bosque, productos resultantes de eco-negocios, entre otros, donde los países en desarrollo tiene más bien mejores posibilidades por explotar en estas mismas negociaciones.

En ese sentido, los países sudamericanos, en esencia, no han logrado por distintas razones tales como el desinterés político, limitadas capacidades institucionales y hasta desconocimiento de la relevancia de los temas, armonizar sus posiciones y en algunos casos tienen una participación casi nula o muy poco relevante en el contexto de las negociaciones internacionales donde se discute sobre los bienes ambientales y el comercio.

Esto último, como lo sugiere el autor, hace evidente una limitada articulación entre actores de la sociedad civil, el sector empresarial y productivo y el Estado en la evaluación de opciones y generación de estrategias para sacar ventajas en el ámbito de las negociaciones comerciales internacionales (especialmente en la OMC) de una mayor riqueza potencial en cuanto a bienes ambientales casi connaturales al medio geográfico y ecológico de estos países.

El trabajo de García se hace también bastante digerible en la medida que incluye una serie de conclusiones y recomendaciones pertinentes al tema de los bienes ambientales. Los anexos y especialmente a bibliografía utilizada ofrecen una herramienta útil para profundizar y ampliar el análisis de los temas.

Jaime García es Economista y catedrático de la Universidad de Lima y su investigación fue financiada a través del Programa de Bienes y Servicios Ambientales del Centro Internacional para el Comercio y el Desarrollo Sostenible (ICTSD) con sede en Ginebra, Suiza y que a su vez ha sido apoyado por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Luxemburgo.

Sin duda, el trabajo de García constituye un excelente esfuerzo por sistematizar y sintetizar información y datos relevantes para a partir de ello proponer algunas reflexiones que deben contribuir a despertar el interés de los países y sus diferentes actores en los procesos de negociación comercial- ambiental internacional, con particular énfasis en las actualmente un tanto lentas negociaciones en el ámbito de la OMC.

In 1992, at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations, the EU instituted reforms, significantly lowering support prices for grain and beef and compensating farmers by paying them directly. Lowering prices enabled the EU to allow the volume of subsidized exports to be reduced through reductions in surpluses.

The EU has subsequently continued its reform process. In the 2000 reform, it reduced the support price of cereals by 15 percent, and in the 2003 reform reduced the support prices on dairy products, with the price of skimmed milk powder being lowered by 15 percent and that for butter by 25 percent.

In the 2005 reform, the EU finally reduced the support price for sugar (previously unchanged for 40 years) by 36 percent, and switched to direct payments corresponding to 64 percent of the price reduction. For these reasons, the EU could make a commitment to eliminate export subsidies for sugar, dairy products, cereals and beef, and could tolerate 100 percent tariff caps in the current Doha Round of negotiations.

Since the 1960s, price support has dominated Japan’s agricultural policy, supporting farmers’ incomes but placing a huge burden on consumers. In order to maintain high prices, Japan has had to rely on tariffs and non-tariff measures so as to isolate its domestic market from the international market.

In the Uruguay Round, the country resisted tariffication and resorted to special treatment stipulated in Annex 5 of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA), compensating for not tariffying rice by providing more minimum access than would have otherwise been required. Japan, however, finally recognized that it could no longer bear the excessive minimum access burden and applied tariffication in 1999.

The Japanese position in this Round has not changed much from the Uruguay Round, since the country has not changed many of its domestic policies. In 2000, Japan introduced direct payments for farmers in disadvantaged regions. In 2007, it changed the 70 percent of deficiency payments for wheat, barley, sugar and some other dry farming products into green box payments. These policy reforms, however, did not change the domestic prices of agricultural products. Japan therefore has to continue to rely on high tariffs in order to maintain those prices and protect its agricultural sector.

To what extent would a successful conclusion of this Round along the lines of the Revised Draft Modalities paper issued by the chair of the agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Falconer, require changes in Japanese agricultural policies?

How much increased market access is likely to be generated as a result of tariff cuts and tariff rate quota expansion? Could Japan play a more aggressive role in the world market, taking advantage of the expansion of market access generated in other countries?

This paper makes attempts to address these issues by exploring the implications of the Revised Draft Modalities paper.

In addition to quantitative analysis of the extent to which tariffs would be reduced, this paper attempts to analyze the probable and possible effects of the paper on Japanese agriculture and agricultural policies, taking into accounts recent developments in the world market.

The first section of the paper gives an overview of the current state of Japanese agriculture and agricultural policies, insofar as these relate to the disciplines introduced in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA). The second section reviews briefly the Japanese positions in this Round. The next three sections discuss in more detail the implications of the domestic support, market access and export competition modalities.

The following section tries to point out several legal drawbacks to the proposed commitments on subsidies, the lack of disciplines on export tax, and the overly lenient disciplines on export quantity restrictions. It also refers to some environmental concerns which are just as important as trade concerns. The final section makes an overall assessment of the impacts of the suggested modalities on Japan.

Fisheries trade relations between the EU and ACP countries are governed by World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions, as well as those of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) between the EU and ACP countries. These relations are undergoing a period of change, with the negotiation of new economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that will replace current unilateral trade preferences offered by the EU with reciprocal preferences. The ACP-EU EPA negotiations have given rise to concerns about potential loss of preferences that could result in a significant decrease of export revenues for ACP countries. Other issues of concern for ACP countries relate to tariff escalation and tariff peaks, reforming rules of origin, and the implications of EU regulations on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The inclusion of investment in the negotiations brings a new dimension that warrants careful consideration.

The continuation of uninterrupted market access for fish and fish products was a primary motivation for several ACP countries to agree to initial interim economic partnership agreements (IEPAs) or to agree to full EPAs with the European Community at the end of 2007. In certain cases a specific fisheries chapter was included in a regional IEPA/EPA. This was the case for the East African Community (EAC) and Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) IEPAs, and similarly for the chapter on agriculture and fisheries in the Caribbean EPA (CARIFORUM). In other cases, fisheries were part of bilateral IEPAs between the EU and certain non-least developed countries (LDCs) in the ACP. This was the case for Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, as West Africa did not come to an agreement with the European Community on a regional EPA at the end of December 2007.

The process of negotiating EPAs, including negotiations on rules governing trade and market access for fish and fish products, has been complex, challenging and divisive for the ACP groupings. At present, ACP groups yet to finalize their negotiations with the European Community are under pressure to do so. In regions that have already initialled an interim agreement, a number of questions subject to possible renegotiations remain. Overall, there is an urgent need for regions with IEPAs to ensure satisfaction with fisheries provisions already negotiated, and for regions without interim EPAs to learn from others in order to better articulate their positions in the process of negotiating full EPAs.

In response to these concerns, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is initiating a process of analytical review of negotiations on fisheries under the EPA negotiations. This effort seeks to provide a better understanding of the substance of the provisions contained in IEPA/EPA agreements and to assess their significance from a trade, livelihood and sustainable development perspective.

As part of this process, this study is intended to be a practical tool for national and regional policymakers and stakeholders. It is meant to contribute to enhancing preparedness for negotiations of full EPAs such that the outcome contributes effectively to improving livelihoods and food security, ensuring meaningful market access, and achieving broad sustainable development objectives in ACP countries.

Liam Campling is currently a PhD candidate in development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. His research examines the global commodity chains in canned tuna (centred on the EU and US), with a focus on their developmental relationship with Fiji and Seychelles.

He has published on development in small island states, the politics of international trade relations and commodity studies in the Journal of Developing Societies, the Journal of Agrarian Change (with Henry Bernstein), Sustainable Development (with Michel Rosalie), Island Studies Journal (with Elizabeth Havice) and Development Policy Review (with Jesper Nielson and Stefano Ponte). He is on the editorial board of the journal Historical Materialism and is reviews editor of the Journal of Agrarian Change. Since November 2007 he has been consultant trade policy analyst to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). He has also worked as a consultant for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Center for the Development of Enterprise (CDE), the governments of Mauritius and Seychelles, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Regional Trade Facilitation Programme and United Nations Research Insitute for Social Development (UNRISD). He previously taught international politics and history on the University of Manchester Twinning Programme, Seychelles Polytechnic.

This paper is part of ICTSD’s project on fisheries, trade and sustainable development, which aims to foster an inclusive and informed process for crafting multilateral, regional and domestic trade rules and policies in the fisheries sector that are supportive of sustainable development.

While Paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha mandate calls for a reduction, or as appropriate, elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on EGS, the lack of a universally accepted definition on EGS has meant that trade delegates have struggled over the scope of goods and services that would be taken up for liberalisation. Further, while the aim of the EGS mandate is to liberalise, it provides no indication of the pace, depth or sequencing of liberalisation vis-à-vis ‘other’ goods and services. A major fault
line in the negotiations on environmental goods is the dispute over whether only goods intended solely for environmental protection purposes should be included as opposed to goods that may have both environmental and non-environmental uses. A number of developing countries are concerned about the inclusion of goods which they perceive as only vaguely linked to environmental protection. They are also worried about the import-led impacts of including a broad range of industrial goods on their domestic industries, employment and tariff revenues. In a broader context, a lack of movement on issues of interest to developing countries, particularly agriculture, also inhibits proactive developing country engagement on EGS negotiations.

Beyond the possible socio-economic impacts of EGS negotiations, it is essential to ensure that liberalisation of environmental goods, most of which are used for both environmental and non-environmental purposes, ultimately produce the environmental benefits intended by such disciplines.It is useful in this regard to examine and analyse relevant environmental indicators and the extent to which these are correlated with economic data and trade indicators on environmental goods. It is also important to understand the key drivers of trade in environmental goods so that the relative importance of tariff-liberalisation vis a vis other drivers can be weighed in relation to each other in various categories of environmental goods.

This paper by Dr. Veena Jha provides a reality check on these issues through rigorous empirical analysis and econometric modeling. The paper is also unique in that it tries to bring together environmental knowledge generated through the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook and relevant environmental performance indices with trade data on a set of 153 environmental that have informally been proposed for liberalisation by a group of WTO Members which may or may not be relevant in addressing these problems.

The paper assesses the extent to which countries and regions which suffer from various environmental problems trade in the set of these 153 environmental goods and the main factors driving such trade. In addition, it analyses the trends in dynamic comparative advantage enjoyed by the main exporters and importers of these goods-both developed as well as developing countries. Finally the paper also examines the implications of these findings in informing a meaningful negotiating strategy on environmental goods at the WTO.

Dr. Veena Jha is a Visiting Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Advanced studies, University of Warwick, UK, and a research fellow at the International Development Research Centre, Canada. In addition, she is the executive director of Maguru Consultants Limited, London, UK. She has worked with the United Nations in various capacities for over twenty years. She was the Coordinator of an important UNCTAD/ DFID/Government of India initiative on ‘Strategies and Preparedness for trade and Globalisation in India’. She has published twelve books on trade and development issues, articles in journals, and was a member of some consensus building initiatives on trade and environment issues in the last decade. She has been a member of several national and international Advisory Boards, notably the United Nations Secretary General’s Task Force on Millennium Development goals. She has served as an expert on technical committees of the Government of India, industry associations, and non-governmental organisations on trade and development issues.

The paper is part of a series of issue papers commissioned in the context of ICTSD’s Environmental Goods and Services Project, which address a range of cross-cutting, country specific and regional issues of relevance to the current EGS negotiations. The project aims to enhance developing countries’ capacity to understand trade and sustainable development issue linkages with respect to EGS and reflect regional perspectives and priorities in regional and multilateral trade negotiations. We hope you will find this paper to be stimulating and informative reading and useful for your work.

A new study shows that Doha market access promises to least-developed countries (LDCs) would be undermined by barriers to key exports. This groundbreaking report was released in advance of the Mini-Ministerial trade talks held at the WTO headquarters in Geneva during the last two weeks in July.

As trade ministers gathered at the WTO to try and reach a compromise in the global trade talks, one of the main objectives was to help the world’s poorest countries expand their participation in global trade through the successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round. But, promises by industrialised nations to grant unrestricted market access to exports from LDCs as part of a WTO deal would be rendered practically worthless unless they cover all products, according to this new study commissioned by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. In this paper, it is estimated how LDCs’ access to rich and selected emerging markets would be affected by excluding certain products from liberalisation.

WTO members agreed in 2005 to make it mandatory for developed countries, and optional for developing countries, to give duty- and quota-free market access to all exports from least-developed countries (LDCs). They insisted on being allowed to exclude up to 3% of tariff lines from this so-called ‘Duty Free Quota Free Market Access’ (DFQFMA) initiative, in order to protect sensitive sectors.

This recent study shows that this exception could suffice to cover the small handful of products that LDCs make and export competitively. “In most developed country markets, 3% of tariff lines cover between 90% and 98% of exports from LDCs,” found author David Laborde. “The 3 % exclusion manages to neutralize the initiative almost completely in developed country markets,” he wrote.

Extending duty- and quota-free coverage to all products, however, would minimise the harm caused to LDCs by multilateral tariff cuts under a Doha agreement, the study found. When rich countries lower import barriers to products from China, India, Brazil, and the industrialised world, it inevitably erodes the trade preferences that LDCs enjoy in their markets. But with full duty and quota-free market access for LDCs, these losses are confined to a much smaller number of countries.

The study demonstrates that giving LDCs duty-free market access and simple rules of origin leads to export growth and diversification. As the Director of Programmes at ICTSD, Christophe Bellman, said, “Quite simply, duty-free quota-free access for LDCs works.”