Inside U.S. Trade reports that Brazil and India are sponsoring an amendment to the TRIPS agreement to bring it into conformity with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity by requiring disclosure of the origin of inventions derived from biological sources. It’s possible that India might tie this issue to market access in the Doha negotiations.

The softwood lumber dispute has come to an end, and the settlement isn’t pretty to free traders.

Jane Galt says that the “Bush administration’s committment to free trade has been downright inspiring.”

Oxfam argues that no deal is better than a bad one at Doha if the US & EU positions don’t change.

Blogging will continue to be light as I am a bit swamped with only two weeks until graduation.

Susan Schwab is the new United States Trade Representative, previously serving as deputy USTR. Rob Portman is moving to OMB.

Drezner opines that this is bad for negotiations: “Bush and Bolten have decided to switch teams at USTR in the weeks before various deadlines for the Doha round of trade talks come up. This is a bad, bad sign for the likelihood of those negotiations to succeed.” According to the FT, “the appointment of Ms Schwab… was intended to send a signal of continuity, US officials said on Tuesday.”

I have no idea if the switch will have an impact at the negotiating table.

World Trade Law:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) today (April 3) called on the Bush Administration to acknowledge that the ongoing Doha round of trade negotiations is completely stalled over European intransigence, and refocus its energies on completing negotiations for free trade agreements already launched before fast-track negotiating authority expires in July 2007.

Ben Muse:

An impasse in negotiations, a weakening American President (who will be a lame duck when an agreement would come before Congress), an opposition that’s seen the potential benefit of the protection card (a key element in the Dubai Ports World), and that can be expected to make gains in the 2006 mid-term elections. None of this augurs will for a successful Doha Round.

Also pushing the agenda is a likely lapse in President George W. Bush’s fast-track trade negotiating authority, which is set to expire in July 2007. Lamy, who visited Washington last week, said his talks with leading members of the finance and agricultural committees in both houses of Congress, including Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had made clear that those powers would not be extended. [IHT]

I’ve frequently warned that preferential trade risks creating vested interests that will oppose future multilateral liberalization. A new paper by Mary Amiti and John Romalis argues that my fears won’t come true in the Doha Round, primarily because actual preferential access is not yet significant. The abstract:

This paper assesses the effects of reducing tariffs under the Doha Round on market access for developing countries. It shows that for many developing countries, actual preferential access is less generous than it appears because of low product coverage or complex rules of origin. Thus lowering tariffs under the multilateral system is likely to lead to a net increase in market access for many developing countries, with gains in market access offsetting losses from preference erosion. Furthermore, comparing various tariff-cutting proposals, the research shows that the largest gains in market access are generated by higher tariff cuts in agriculture.

Full text available here (pdf).

Other trade bloggers have yet to post about the deal struck in Hong Kong, so I’ll quickly note the highlights of what I learned from two articles in The Standard.

(1) France won in regards to the export subsidies abolition deadline. Countries have until 2013, whereas Brazil and India preferred an earlier deadline of 2010.

(2) Services won’t be liberalized significantly.

(3) The G90 group (African Union + LDCs + ACP) appears to have secured preferential access to the markets of WTO members, although the US and Japan won exemptions for “sensitive” products like rice and textiles.

(4) Benin’s hardline stance on cotton appears to have yielded a few dividends. Although the agreement doesn’t end domestic subsidies for cotton, all export subsidies and tariffs and quota systems against cotton imports from developing countries will be terminated by 2006.

Over all, most folks seem happy with the deal only because it means that trade delegates avoided walking away from Hong Kong empty-handed. Rob Portman, USTR, says there’s “a lot more work to do in agriculture and market access.” The G20 called the deal “modest but not insignificant,” while the EU begrudgingly labeled the compromise “acceptable.”

No one approached the negotiating table at the start of the week expecting a breakthrough, so it’s little surprise that the struggle will continue in 2006.

Dan Drezner has the latest on the potential for a deal in Hong Kong. It looks like the remaining hurdle is setting a date for the termination of export subsidies. Once again, it’s the EU opposing greater liberalization.

Arvind Panagariya, Jagdish Bhagwati, and C. Fred Bergsten are amongst the contributers to a special edition of Foreign Affairs dedicated to the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong. These articles are essential reading prior to next week’s negotiations.

If you didn’t already know:

The trade talks at Geneva collapsed on Wednesday with the two-day ministerial meetings being called off mid-way as the US and EU refused to cut subsidies provided to their farmers and developing nations stood firm on protecting their peasantry. [Telegraph of Calcutta]