The Axe Effect: NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Lumber Dispute

北美自由貿易區與加美木材紛爭

羅邦固(Alagu Perumal Ramasamy)

《Taiwanese Journal of WTO Studies》 6期 (2007/08) Pp. 61-109

https://doi.org/10.30392/TJWTOS.200708_(6).0003

摘要

美加之間的木材紛爭一直是兩國雙邊貿易中堪稱歷史最悠久的貿易紛爭，可追溯至一八五三年的加美互惠談判。本文前半段將討論一九八二年十月七日當美國公平木材進口聯盟（Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports）依據一九三○年美國關稅法案向美國商務部（Department of Commerce）陳情要求對加拿大進口的軟木木材課徵平衡稅（countervailing duties）之後的加美木材紛爭。而在第二部份則提出有關美國國際貿易委員會（US International Trade Commission）受創小組（InjuryPanel）對美國軟木工業所造成實質傷害之威脅做出最終報告書所面對的關鍵問題。一般而言，加美木材紛爭迄今共有四次。第一次紛爭出現在一九八二年。美國公平木材進口聯盟指稱加國的未採伐木材體系（Stumpage System）是種補貼的形式，但遭美國商務部拒絕。一九八六年該聯盟又再度指控加國木材獲得百分之廿七的政府補助，仍遭到與前次一樣的命運，是為第二次加美木材紛爭。不過，加國在該年與美國簽訂至一九九一年止為期五年的備忘錄（MOU），自我設限對美國的木材出口。一九九一年十月的第三次加美木材紛爭上達到小組評估（Panel review），並認定美國的行動不合法。美方遂要求成立特別評估委員會（Extraordinary Review Committee）。該委員會立場分歧，雙方與會委員皆支持本國立場，而美籍主席甚至質疑特別委員會程序的合法性。最後，加方被迫選擇在一九九六年四月與美國簽訂軟木材協議（Softwood Lumber Agreement）以配額限制加國對美國的木材出口。五年該協議一滿期，美方又再興控訴，是為第四次加美木材紛爭，也是美國首次對加國木材提出反傾銷控訴。當美國國際貿易委員會在做任何有關美國木材工業受到實質傷害的威脅的決定時，負責的部門都必須考慮兩項主要問題，其一為有關該項進口產品的經濟威脅因素：其二為必須能證明受創威脅是因該項產品的進口所導致的。受創小組發現美國的決定無法證明相關因素有根據的，認為美國的行動並未遵循當地的法律。

關鍵字

補貼 ； 美加木材紛爭 ； 配額限制 ； 北美自由貿易區

並列摘要

With respect to bilateral trade disputes between the U.S. and Canada, the lumber dispute has been the longest. The Lumber dispute is a lot older than a hundred years and it is believed to have figured in Canada-U.S reciprocity talks in 1853. In the first part of this article the lumber dispute starting from October 7, 1982, will be discussed from a historical perspective, when the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports (The U.S. Coalition) filed a petition to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) under the 1930 Tariff Act of the United States seeking Countervailing Duties (CVD) against Canadian Softwood lumber imports.Lumber Dispute is one of the longest continuing trade disputes between United States and Canada. Starting from 1982, there have been several separate disputes called Lumber I, II, III and IV. Each dispute, barring a few remands, has been resolved in favor of Canada and the issue has taken a political color over the years. The dispute has eventually resulted in additional financial burden for the end consumers and has cost over 1.5 Billion dollars for the Canadian lumber producers. The dispute basically started over the disagreement between the American lumber producers and the Canadian lumber producers on the stumpage charges levied by Canada. The stumpage charges remain central to the dispute to this day. In the first part of the paper we will see the evolution of the dispute.The second part will specifically deal with the Injury Panel's observations and reasons for such observations in Lumber IV, issued on Sept 5, 2003, on the Commission's decision of threat of injury to the domestic lumber market in the U.S. The Injury Panel's determination that there is no record evidence of Threat of Injury to U.S. lumber producers is more interesting in its reasons for such an observation than the observation itself. The Injury Panel remands several of the determinations while rejecting completely some of the claims of the U.S. side. It is interesting to note that the U.S. determination is not just flawed but also blatantly unsubstantiated in its record evidence, which is indicative of the political nature of the dispute. The third part will deal with the latest developments since the beginning of Lumber IV dispute in NAFTA. The dispute was brought to the WTO which further strengthened the Canadian position. While there have been several developments in the WTO investigations relating to the lumber dispute, I have restricted to the dispute at the NAFTA forum alone. Later in 2006, both Canada and US came to a final compromise.