(Industry Week – Agence France-Presse)
Trading volumes of developed economies are now expected to shrink by 14% while those of developing economies contract 7%
The World Trade Organization (WTO) warned Wednesday of rising protectionism amid the economic crisis as it sharply cut its forecast for trade volumes of developed and developing economies this year.
Making its latest assessment of the global economic situation, the WTO also observed that the sharp contraction of the global economy registered in the first quarter this year “appears to be slowing down.” However, citing risks including rising unemployment and oil prices, the organization lowered its forecast of global trade contraction to 10% from its March forecast of a shrinkage of 9%.
Trading volumes of developed economies are now expected to shrink by 14% instead of 10% while those of developing economies would contract 7%, rather than the earlier forecast 2% to 3%. Read more here.
July 2, 2009
Organic Products Certification
(CFIA)
As of June 30, 2009, the Organic Products Regulations require mandatory certification to the revised National Organic Standard for agricultural products represented as organic in international and inter-provincial trade, or that bear the federal organic agricultural product legend (or federal logo).
Links:
• List of Certification Bodies accredited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
• List of Conformity Verification Bodies
As of June 30, 2009, the Organic Products Regulations require mandatory certification to the revised National Organic Standard for agricultural products represented as organic in international and inter-provincial trade, or that bear the federal organic agricultural product legend (or federal logo).
Links:
• List of Certification Bodies accredited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
• List of Conformity Verification Bodies
June 30, 2009
Buy American Lives on as Environmental Protection Agency Talks Tough
(The Canadian Press – Lee-Anne Goodman)
Opponents of the Obama administration’s so-called Buy American provisions are working furiously this summer under a Canadian deadline, trying to convince legislators to do something about the protectionist measure before a full-fledged trade war erupts.
Their efforts come despite recent Environmental Protection Agency directives reminding local utilities that they need not concern themselves with NAFTA obligations as the federal watchdog also issued stern warnings about Buy American non-compliance.
“We’re all under the Canadian clock,” Dawn Christof-Champney, president of the Waste and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, said Monday. Champney was referring to the 120-day deadline issued by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on June 6. It gives the U.S. 120 days to exempt Canada from the Buy American provisions in President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, or Canadian municipalities will begin shutting out U.S. firms from bidding on local contracts.
Various stakeholders opposed to Buy American, including blue-chip American corporations, recently made submissions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, the department handling the stimulus package. They urged a reversal of the policy. “We all poured most of our energy into submitting our views,” Champney said.
Submissions in hand, the Obama administration will now write the final rules on how to implement Buy American. A spokesman for the OMB said recently the legislation is expected to be tweaked, “but to what extent and how significantly, that remains to be seen.” Read more here.
Opponents of the Obama administration’s so-called Buy American provisions are working furiously this summer under a Canadian deadline, trying to convince legislators to do something about the protectionist measure before a full-fledged trade war erupts.
Their efforts come despite recent Environmental Protection Agency directives reminding local utilities that they need not concern themselves with NAFTA obligations as the federal watchdog also issued stern warnings about Buy American non-compliance.
“We’re all under the Canadian clock,” Dawn Christof-Champney, president of the Waste and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, said Monday. Champney was referring to the 120-day deadline issued by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on June 6. It gives the U.S. 120 days to exempt Canada from the Buy American provisions in President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, or Canadian municipalities will begin shutting out U.S. firms from bidding on local contracts.
Various stakeholders opposed to Buy American, including blue-chip American corporations, recently made submissions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, the department handling the stimulus package. They urged a reversal of the policy. “We all poured most of our energy into submitting our views,” Champney said.
Submissions in hand, the Obama administration will now write the final rules on how to implement Buy American. A spokesman for the OMB said recently the legislation is expected to be tweaked, “but to what extent and how significantly, that remains to be seen.” Read more here.
Is ‘Buy China’ a Protectionist Threat?
(New York Times – Catherine Rampell)
“Government investment projects should buy domestically made products unless products or services cannot be obtained in reasonable commercial conditions in China,” a Beijing government edict said.
The Chinese government quibbled with the “protectionist” characterization of its edict – not surprisingly, given how energetically the Communist leadership protested the protectionist portions of the United States’ stimulus package. But economists have fretted about it nonetheless, fearing that it may be a potential harbinger of a new wave of protectionist policies throughout the developing world.
Is this a trend free trade advocates should really worry about? Should we expect other emerging economies to start hoisting up trade barriers, under the impression that the current crisis has somehow debunked capitalism? Read more here.
“Government investment projects should buy domestically made products unless products or services cannot be obtained in reasonable commercial conditions in China,” a Beijing government edict said.
The Chinese government quibbled with the “protectionist” characterization of its edict – not surprisingly, given how energetically the Communist leadership protested the protectionist portions of the United States’ stimulus package. But economists have fretted about it nonetheless, fearing that it may be a potential harbinger of a new wave of protectionist policies throughout the developing world.
Is this a trend free trade advocates should really worry about? Should we expect other emerging economies to start hoisting up trade barriers, under the impression that the current crisis has somehow debunked capitalism? Read more here.
Customs Notice: Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement
(CBSA)
The following is now available on the CBSA Web site:
CN09-014 Proposed Regulatory Amendments and Proposed New Regulations Related to the Implementation of the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement
This notice announces regulatory amendments and new regulations proposed by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in support of the implementation of the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). It is further proposed that these regulatory amendments and new regulations come into force on July 1, 2009, on condition that the Governor in Council make them.
The following is now available on the CBSA Web site:
CN09-014 Proposed Regulatory Amendments and Proposed New Regulations Related to the Implementation of the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement
This notice announces regulatory amendments and new regulations proposed by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in support of the implementation of the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). It is further proposed that these regulatory amendments and new regulations come into force on July 1, 2009, on condition that the Governor in Council make them.
June 29, 2009
Jordan, Canada Sign Free Trade Agreement
(AP/CTV News)
Canada has inked a free trade pact with Jordan that will lift duties on Canadian exports to the Arab nation.
Trade Minister Stockwell Day and his Jordanian counterpart signed the agreement Sunday in Jordan's capital, Amman.
Canada's forestry, manufacturing and agriculture sectors are expected to benefit from duty-free access.
In return, Canada will give the Mideast country preferential trade conditions, including full exemption from customs duties for Jordanian goods.
The deal is expected to be ratified by both parliaments later this year.
Bilateral trade stood at about $92.2 million in 2008, according to a news release from Canadian government. Read more here.
Canada has inked a free trade pact with Jordan that will lift duties on Canadian exports to the Arab nation.
Trade Minister Stockwell Day and his Jordanian counterpart signed the agreement Sunday in Jordan's capital, Amman.
Canada's forestry, manufacturing and agriculture sectors are expected to benefit from duty-free access.
In return, Canada will give the Mideast country preferential trade conditions, including full exemption from customs duties for Jordanian goods.
The deal is expected to be ratified by both parliaments later this year.
Bilateral trade stood at about $92.2 million in 2008, according to a news release from Canadian government. Read more here.
Global Supply Chain Hit by Uniserve Case
(International Freighting Weekly – Gavin van Marle)
Carriers could find themselves fully liable for goods following delivery errors
The number of supply chain partners vulnerable to the new liability loophole uncovered by IFW last month could be far greater than originally thought, and include carriers of all modes, as well as forwarders and warehouse operators.
UK-based freight operator Uniserve was recently found liable in a High Court ruling for a £375,000 (US$610,000) pallet of mobile phone devices that was stolen from one its warehouses in 2003 after being delivered there in error.
The company’s CEO, Iain Liddell, said that more than just the forwarding sector could be liable for goods accepted in good faith, but delivered in error. “If the error is such that your customer didn’t intend to deal with you at all, then no contract will arise and you are liable for the full cost of the goods if you are at fault for their damage or loss, “ he said.
“An error can be as simple as the principal or his agent delivering the goods to the wrong party, but the party receiving those goods may well have a trading relationship and have every intention of providing a service to the principal or his agent and accept the goods in good faith, totally unaware that an error has been made.”
He outlined some potential ways in which hauliers, shipping lines and airlines could find themselves fully liable as the result of errors that would invalidate a contract: Read more here.
Carriers could find themselves fully liable for goods following delivery errors
The number of supply chain partners vulnerable to the new liability loophole uncovered by IFW last month could be far greater than originally thought, and include carriers of all modes, as well as forwarders and warehouse operators.
UK-based freight operator Uniserve was recently found liable in a High Court ruling for a £375,000 (US$610,000) pallet of mobile phone devices that was stolen from one its warehouses in 2003 after being delivered there in error.
The company’s CEO, Iain Liddell, said that more than just the forwarding sector could be liable for goods accepted in good faith, but delivered in error. “If the error is such that your customer didn’t intend to deal with you at all, then no contract will arise and you are liable for the full cost of the goods if you are at fault for their damage or loss, “ he said.
“An error can be as simple as the principal or his agent delivering the goods to the wrong party, but the party receiving those goods may well have a trading relationship and have every intention of providing a service to the principal or his agent and accept the goods in good faith, totally unaware that an error has been made.”
He outlined some potential ways in which hauliers, shipping lines and airlines could find themselves fully liable as the result of errors that would invalidate a contract: Read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
