Fossil fuels, renewable energy and WTO rules

An ASIL insight into subsidies, renewable energy and fossil fuels throws open larger issues of trade, environment protection and world trade rules.

Timothy Meyer questions the dichotomy between the differential treatment between subsidies given to fossil fuels vis a vis those provided to renewable energy.

"The existence of domestic content requirements in renewable energy programs is likely a political condition for passage by governments that wish to show that they are not subsidizing foreign investors. But this political necessity has rendered government support for environmentally-helpful renewable energy programs vulnerable to challenge before the WTO in a way that environmentally-harmful fossil-fuel subsidies are not, creating tension once again between trade and climate objectives."

Who will bell the cat? 

Local content was always there, my friend

For those who are following the domestic content requirements in renewable energy debate (I have blogged about it here, here and here), especially in the context of the Ontario Feed- in tariff case, a recent study highlights the universal use of domestic content requirements or local content requirements by countries in renewable energy programs around the world.

The study titled "Local Content Requirements and the Renewable Energy Industry - a Good Match? " by ICTSD is found here.

The paper concluded:

"Finally, as already emphasized at the beginning of this paper, further research is required to support a meaningful debate on this pressing issue. As indicated, to date there has been relatively little empirical analysis of the potential of LCRs being used in conjuncture with the creation of globally competitive innovators. This is especially the case for LCRs in RE policy. Econometric modelling of LCRs for RE growth is particularly needed. It is certain that many countries use LCRs in RE policies and that these schemes are often contradictory to WTO law. However, it is in the interest of neither the trade community, nor the green tech community, to have the necessary debate before the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Instead, there should be informed debate about what is effective, and what is agreed as appropriate, in the support of critically necessary green technology development."

A classic case of trade versus the environment? Or is there a need for a re-look at the trade rules itself? Or are they both compatible?

In another context, an interesting piece of the clash of policy goals of free trade, protection of the environment and geo-politics with respect to the dispute of Chinese solar panels imports into Europe.

All in all, trade and environment have a lot to sort out here.

Legal analysis of the Canadian FiT case

A detailed legal analysis of the Canadian FiT case by Shailja Singh of the Centre of WTO Studies is found here. I have blogged about it in three parts here, here and here.

On the dissenting opinion the analysis noted:

"The present dispute is one of those rare disputes in the working of the WTO disputes settlement mechanism, where a dissenting opinion has been given one member of the Panel. The dissenting opinion differed with the majority panel with respect to whether the challenged measures conferred a benefit within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement."

Are we going to see more dissenting opinions in the Panel/AB reports of the WTO? Is it a sign of evolving jurisprudence or multiple interpretative discourses that can exist within the international trade regime?

Looking forward to more legal analysis of the decision in the ASIL Insights or IELP blogs, until it is appealed against by Canada. I am almost sure that the case will go to the Appellate Body of the WTO.

Canada finally appeals in Feed in tariff case

As expected Canada has appealed against the Panel decision (DS412 and 426) in the Ontario Feed in tariff case. It has been reported here in the WTO website. The Panel had ruled against the local content requirement that was mandated by Canada's law and regulations in relation to feed in tariff.

I have blogged about this far reaching decision in the renewable energy sector here, here, here and here. Hopefully the Appellate Body (AB) would settle the complex issues of law in relation to the interpretation of a "subsidy" under the ASCM as well as whether local content requirements violate the "national treatment" principle both under the GATT and TRIMS. It would be interesting to see if the AB accepts the "minority" reasoning of the Panel with respect to conferment of a benefit under the ASCM? Countries with massive renewable energy support programs, especially feed in tariffs will be watching very closely.

Over to the AB now...

Analysis of the Canadian FiT case: Interpretation of Article III:8(a) GATT - Part II

Can the Ontario Feed-in tariff measure be justified under Article III:8(a) GATT? In other words, can a violation of the national treatment principle enshrined in Article III:4 GATT and Article 2.1 TRIMS be justified on the ground that the exception of Article III:8(a) GATT is applicable?

Article III:8(a) GATT states:

"8.       (a)      The provisions of this Article shall not apply to laws, regulations or requirements governing the procurement by governmental agencies of products purchased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the production of goods for commercial sale."

The Ontario Power Authority purchases electricity from the renewable energy generation producers who are eligible for the guaranteed tariff which is conditioned on the purchase of domestic renewable energy generation products. Thus, there are two products in question: "electricity" produced and "renew be energy generation equipment". The panel dismissed the distinction of the two in the context of interpretation of Article III:8(a) GATT thus:

" 7.127 As already mentioned, the "Minimum Required Domestic Content Level" is a necessary prerequisite for the alleged procurement by the Government of Ontario to take place, and to this extent, we are of the view that such requirements "govern" the alleged procurement. Furthermore, we observe that the electricity allegedly procured by the Government of Ontario under the FIT Programme is produced using the renewable energy generation equipment that is the subject of the "Minimum Required Domestic Content Level". Thus, to the extent that the "Minimum Required Domestic Content Level" relates to the very same equipment that is needed and used to produce the electricity that is allegedly procured, there is very clearly a close relationship between the products that are affected by the relevant "laws, regulations or requirements" (renewable energy generation equipment) and the product that is allegedly procured (electricity)."

Regarding the interpretation of "commercial resale" in Article III:8(a) GATT requiring a profit element, the Panel held:

"7.151 Having found that Hydro One and the LDCs sell electricity in competition with private-sector licensed retailers and that the Government of Ontario and the municipal governments profit from the resale of electricity purchased under the FIT Programme to consumers, it is clear to us, for purposes of these disputes, that the nature of the resale of electricity purchased under the FIT Programme is "commercial". In coming to this conclusion, we emphasize that this does not mean we agree with Canada's understanding that a "commercial resale" will always necessarily involve profit, as there may well be situations where a resale of a product purchased by a governmental agency may not involve a profit but still may be "commercial" for the purpose of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994. Indeed, it is a fact that loss-making sales can be, and often are, a part of ordinary commercial activity. However, in the present factual situation, we have concluded that it is sufficient, for the purpose of finding that the Government of Ontario purchases electricity under the FIT Programme "with a view to commercial resale", that the Government of Ontario and the municipal governments not only profit from the resale of electricity that is purchased under the FIT Programme, but also that electricity resales are made in competition with licensed electricity retailers. In the light of the foregoing considerations, we find that the Government of Ontario's procurement of electricity under the FIT Programme is undertaken "with a view to commercial resale".

Thus, the Panel held that the Ontario measure did not fall into the ambit of Article III:8(a) GATT and hence was violative of Article III:4 GATT. It also held the measure incompatible with Article 2.1 TRIMS.

"7.152 We have concluded above that: (i) the Government of Ontario's purchases of electricity under the FIT Programme constitute "procurement", within the meaning of that term in Article III:8(a); (ii) the "Minimum Required Domestic Content Level" prescribed under the FIT Programme, and effected through the FIT and microFIT Contracts, is one of the "requirements governing" the Government of Ontario's "procurement" of electricity; and (iii)the Government of Ontario's "procurement" of electricity under the FIT Programme is undertaken "with a view to commercial resale". In the light of this latter conclusion, we find that the measures at issue are not covered by the terms of Article III:8(a), and that consequently, Canada cannot rely on Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 to exclude the application of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 to the "Minimum Required Domestic Content Level" that the complainants challenge."     

I found this observation of the Panel interesting in the context of availability of domestic policy space in international economic law and policy:

"7.153 In coming to this conclusion, we express no opinion about the legitimacy of the Government of Ontario's objective of promoting the use of renewable energy in the production of electricity through the FIT Programme. Our conclusion that the Government of Ontario purchases electricity under the FIT Programme "with a view to commercial resale", within the meaning of Article III:8(a), must be understood only as a judgement about the extent to which Canada is entitled to rely upon Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994 to maintain a measure that is alleged to discriminate against imported products under the terms of Article III:4."

In other words, the broad objective of promoting renewable energy though support programs is not being questioned but the discrimination to imported electricity generation equipment. The latter is not protectionism but the latter is. While renewable energy programs around the world are put through this rubric it would be interesting to see the results. Some would be blatant violations while others would be walking the tight rope. The interesting part (worrying for some) is that al this would be decide in the international arena if a country chooses to. Hence, defending one's national programs in the context of international trade rules becomes evidently critical.The debate would become even more engaging when we analyze the interpretation of the ASCM and whether the measure is a subsidy incompatible with WTO law.

That is for Part III of this series.

 

Canada FiT Panel report is finally out!

The Canada FiT panel report of the WTO is out. It can be accessed here. More on the implications on this blog soon!

Happy year end reading!

Subsidies, State Aid and renewable energy

State support to renewable energy is widely prevalent in both the developed and developing worlds. It is a major tool to pursue the growth of clean technologies and environmental friendly policies. However they do raise critical issues in the context of subsidies rules under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM). My paper on some of the support programs in the EU, US and Japan is found here.

German Energy Blog came up with this interesting post regarding state support in the context of the EU called "State Aid" to renewable energy.In an earlier ruling of the ECJ, the Court had held that FiT did not constitute State Aid.As quoted in the above blogpost:

"In an earlier ruling (ref. no. C-379/98) handed down in 2001 concerning the predecessor of the EEG, the Electricity Feed-in Act (StrEG), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), decided that “that a statutory provision of a Member State which, first, requires private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that type of electricity, and, second, distributes the financial burden resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty” (now after amendment Art. 107 TFEU)."

Will the EU reconsider the concept of State Aid? Would State Aid to the renewable energy sector be cut? What implications does this have to the many programs in the EU supporting renewable energy? Would there be a review of all schemes in the light of the ASCM?

My paper is on the IELP blog!

My paper on "Renewable Energy Programmes in the EU, Japan and the US and their compatibility with WTO law" was referred to on the IELP blog here in the context of the Canadian FiT case. 

Thank you, Simon Lester.

Local content, renewable energy and the WTO

The FiT ruling in the WTO case (DS 412) of Canada's (more specifically Ontario's) renewable energy program is eagerly awaited. I had blogged about a preliminary report of the WTO Panel here. It will surely be appealed against. What implication does the prohibition of "local content" requirements in renewable energy programs have on programs around the world?

A well written piece on the history and implications of a WTO ruling is found here.

Many questions:

1. What is the implication for countries following "local content' requirements in their FiT or renewable energy programs? Will domestic policy require a thorough revamp?

2. Is there a difference between "mandating" local content and "incentivizing" local content? Is the latter more acceptable?

3. Would the applicability of Article XX GATT general exceptions (protecting the environment) not be available in the case of local content rules?

4. Will we see a splurge of trade disputes wherein renewable energy programs across the world based on local content requirements will be challenged at the dispute settlement mechanism? Will countries take this path or will a negotiated settlement for a renewed multilateral agreement on renewable energy be worked out?

Will keenly await the Panel ruling and the reactions to it.

Renewable energy, WTO and local content - China takes on the EU

In signs of increased disputes in the renewable energy sector at the WTO, China filed a complaint against the EU and certain EU member states against certain Feed in Tariff programs that it alleged violated the GATT, ASCM and TRIMs. The WTO reported the filing of the complaint here. Though details of the complaint and the grounds of challenge are not yet clear, it seems that "local content" requirements are the main ground for he challenge.It was reported here.The NYT reported it here. Surprisingly, China has not filed a case against the U.S. with regard to which China connected a detailed investigation into State specific renewable energy programs recently. Many countries provide preferential tariff on generation of renewable energy and also mandate the use of locally produced products for this generation. Some countries provide an incentive on the tariff (additional tariff) on the condition that local products are used. 

EU and Japan have already challenged Canada's (Ontario's, more specifically) Feed-in tariff program as being violate of GATT law since it treats imported products less favourably than local products. The decision of the WTO Panel in this case is awaited in November. I had blogged about the dispute recently here.

With a number of countries implementing renewable energy programs of varying degrees and varieties, with and without local content requirements, the disputes at the WTO will offer some interesting insights on where the lines are to be drawn in balancing environment protection and trade.

Ontario Feed in Tariff - Not a prohibited subsidy but violative of GATT provisions?

Breaking news of an interim WTO panel ruling on the Ontario Feed in Tariff case is coming in. The Globe and Mail reported it here. The EU and Japan had challenged the FiT program for renewable energy of Ontario which mandated use of locally manufactured Ontario products on the grounds that it violated the "local content" rules of the ASCM, TRIMS and GATT. I had earlier blogged about it here, here and here.

The WTO website has no official confirmation of the interim decision (the website is normally uptodate on decisions and happenings in the WTO). ICTSD has a detailed note on the interim decision:

"According to a confidential interim WTO dispute settlement report, a three-member panel has sided with the EU and Japan in their challenge of renewable energy support provided by the Canadian province of Ontario, sources told BioRes this week. The two countries had argued that the feed-in-tariff (FIT) system - put in place in 2009 - violates WTO rules because it requires participating electricity generators to source up to 60 percent of their equipment in Ontario. 

According to a confidential interim WTO dispute settlement report, a three-member panel has sided with the EU and Japan in their challenge of renewable energy support provided by the Canadian province of Ontario, sources told BioRes this week. The two countries had argued that the feed-in-tariff (FIT) system - put in place in 2009 - violates WTO rules because it requires participating electricity generators to source up to 60 percent of their equipment in Ontario .However, based on what is currently known about the confidential document, assertions by Brussels and Tokyo that the programme also amounted to illegal subsidies - dependent on use of locally produced equipment - have been rejected. At the time BioRes went to press, the ruling was not available."

If I understand this right, the panel has decided that the local content requirements are violative of WTO obligations of non-discrimination under GATT and TRIMS. However, they do not constitute a "prohibited subsidy" under Article 3 (1) (b) of the ASCM. Does this imply that an FiT as implemented in Ontario is not a subsidy as defined by the ASCM and hence does not amount to a "prohibited" subsidy? Or does it not have the characteristics of a prohibited subsidy as defined under Article 3 of the ASCM? The other major implication of this distinction of not amounting to a prohibited subsidy is the applicability of the general exception of Article XX of GATT. If it was declared a prohibited subsidy it would have been more difficult for Canada to justify its measure under Article XX of the GATT. This distinction has a major implication for renewable energy programs, especially FiTs, worldwide.

WIll eagerly await the November panel ruling.

Canada's renewable energy program challenged

The disputes in the renewable energy sector are knocking on WTO's doorstep. Reuters reported that EU has decided to seek establishment of a Dispute panel at the WTO against Canada with respect to the Feed-in Tariff program (FIT program) of the Canadian province of Ontario.

"The European Union has escalated a trade dispute over Canadian provincial rules for solar and wind energy subsidies by asking the World Trade Organization to set up a panel to rule on the case, the WTO said on Wednesday.

The EU's decision to resort to legal measures against Canada, after the failure of direct talks to settle the dispute, will come as little surprise because Japan has already trodden the same path in an identical case. 

The EU and Japan say the Canadian province of Ontario is illegally restricting trade by giving an subsidy to local producers of renewable energy equipment and services. 

The scheme guarantees above-market energy prices for renewable power that uses a certain amount of Canadian-made equipment or services, a provision that the complainants say is against the WTO's rules."

 The FIT Program of the Ontario Power Authority essentially encourages power generation projects using renewable sources of energy by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable energy production. As part of this program, to avail its benefits power generation products have to source a certain percentage of their products that are produced domestically in Ontario. 

The domestic content requirement is as follows:

"The FIT contract requires wind projects greater than 10 kilowatts (kW) and all solar PV projects to include a minimum amount of goods and services that come from Ontario. You will be required to develop a plan that demonstrates how you intend to meet these domestic content requirements.

The minimum required amount of Ontario-based content will increase over time and is determined by the milestone date for commercial operation of your project, not the date that your project reaches commercial operation. The minimum requirements are set out below.

Wind projects over 10 kW 

Minimum domestic content level	Milestone date for commercial operation
25 percent	before January 1, 2012
50 percent	on or after January 1, 2012

 Solar PV projects over 10 kW and less than or equal to 10,000 kW 

Minimum domestic content level	Milestone date for commercial operation
50 percent	before January 1, 2011
60 percent	on or after January 1, 2011

This has been challenged by the EU in the WTO on the ground that Canada is violating its WTO obligations as reported here. The EU had earlier sought for consultations in the matter in the WTO. Failure at the consultations led the the demand for setting up of a dispute panel. The main assertions of the EU were:

" The European Union claimed that the measures are inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article III:4 and III:5 of the GATT 1994 because they appear to be laws, regulations or requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or use of equipment for renewable energy generation facilities that accord less favourable treatment to imported equipment than that accorded to like products originating in Ontario; that the measures could be internal quantitative regulations relating to the mixture, processing or use of a specified amount or proportion of equipment for renewable energy generation facilities which require that equipment for renewable energy generation facilities be supplied from Ontario sources; and that the measures appear to require the mixture, processing or use of equipment for renewable energy generation facilities supplied from Ontario in specified amounts or proportions, being applied so as to afford protection to Ontario production of such equipment, contrary to the principles of Article III:1 of the GATT 1994.

The European Union also claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement because they appear to be trade-related investment measures that are inconsistent with the provisions of Article III of the GATT 1994.

Finally, the European Union alleged that it appears that a subsidy is granted under the measures because there would be a financial contribution or a form of income or price support, and a benefit is thereby conferred.  It is also claimed that the subsidy would be a prohibited subsidy under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement because it appears to be provided “contingent … upon the use of domestic over imported goods”, namely contingent upon the use of equipment for renewable energy generation facilities produced in Ontario over such equipment imported from countries such as the European Union."

The three broad issues relating to mandating of domestic content requirement in the FIT program that the EU contentions raise are:
1. It is violative of the national treatment principle which is one of the underlying principles of the WTO. In other words, there are laws/regulations that accord a less favourable treatment to imported goods as compared to locally produced renewable energy products.
2. It violates the national treatment principle in the TRIMS Agreement.
3. The program offers  a "prohibited subsidy" since a subsidy (price support) would be provided to power generation projects contingent upon the use of domestically produced equipment which is not permitted by the Subsidies and Countervailing measures Agreement.


Similarly, Japan has also challenged the FIT program as violative of Canada's commitments which is before the Dispute panel of the WTO, in which the EU is a Third Party. Both these cases will be keenly watched since it will have a bearing on other potential disputes that concern the Chinese, American and Indian renewable energy sectors.

Shining Bright? Not the solar industry

The issue of "protectionism" in manufacturing of renewable energy products, especially solar panels has become a contentious issue of late. Countries, including U.S., China and India) have accused each other of protecting domestic industry over foreign products thus bringing the dispute to the WTO. It has also been recently reported here, here and here.

Down to Earth carried an extensive piece on protectionism in the solar panel industry.

"The world is witnessing an increase in trade disputes in the renewable energy sector. Countries are trying to strengthen their renewable energy base by preferring indigenous products over imports. This is an obvious dampener for countries with good renewable energy equipment manufacturing capabilities and advanced technology. They argue that such policy measures hinder free trade. Their complaints at the World Trade Organization (WTO) are piling up. India is the latest to be in the spotlight."

The United States has alleged illegal dumping by China on solar panel imports into the U.S. This prompted similar steps from China against U.S, imports as reported here.

"Cheap solar panel imports from China have substantially hurt US manufacturers, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily found on 2 December. Following this early assessment, six ITC members unanimously decided to continue investigating the alleged subsidisation and dumping of imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and modules from China. 

The assessment and vote follows the ITC’s decision on 9 November to react to a petition to curb unfair imports submitted by SolarWorld Industries America Inc. and the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM).

Washington’s decision to continue proceedings comes only days after Beijing confirmed that it was conducting its own investigation on Washington’s renewable energy support. Beijing’s probe will cover wind energy, solar, and hydro technology products. The investigation is expected to end by 25 May 2012."

The U.S. has alleged that Chinese manufacturers receive huge subsidies from the State which helps them to sell their products cheaply and thus affect domestic producers in the U.S. The Chinese Commerce Ministry reacted with caution,

"China-based PV (photovoltaic) industries express their strong opposition to the petition for the investigations ... and that any trade restrictive measures that may be imposed will unavoidably cause serious impairment to the sustainable development of the green industries as well as consumers' interests in both China and the U.S."

The Chinese Development Bank has reportedly extended more than $34 billion in credit lines to Chinese solar companies. It has also been interestingly argued that subsidies to the renewable energy industry is practiced around the world by many countries and China is no exception.

Gulzar has recently contextualised the solar energy subsidy debate int he context of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) in India. The U.S has alleged that India's mandating of domestically produced solar products is violative of its WTO obligations. The JNNSM has a domestic component feature.

" Domestic content -
One of the important objectives of the National Solar Mission is to promote domestic manufacturing. In view of this, the developers are expected to procure their project components from domestic manufacturers, as far as possible. However, in the case of Solar PV Projects to be selected in first batch during FY 2010-11, it will be mandatory for Projects based on crystalline silicon technology to use the modules manufactured in India. For Solar PV Projects to be selected in second batch during FY 2011-12, it will be mandatory for all the Projects to use cells and modules manufactured in India" 

It is clear that the solar industry around the world is heavily subsidised by the State through various means. This has resulted in the products being available at an economical price. The issues in the context of the WTO are the following: Whether the subsidies offered by various countries to their domestic manufacturers is violative of WTO obligations? Related to this issue is the question of anti-dumping and countervailing measures that can be imposed to protect local industry against cheap subsidised imports. Most of the cases referred to above refer to the anti-dumping measures against cheap imports.Anti-dumping measures can be imposed after a thorough investigation and a finding that the cheap imports have caused injury local domestic industry.

There are different dimensions to the dispute:

1. Anti-dumping measures can be undertaken, irrespective of whether subsidies are being given by the country, wherein the WTO agreement allows governments to act against dumping where there is genuine (“material”) injury to the competing domestic industry. In order to do that the government has to be able to show that dumping is taking place, calculate the extent of dumping (how much lower the export price is compared to the exporter’s home market price), and show that the dumping is causing injury or threatening to do so.If a company exports a product at a price lower than the price it normally charges on its own home market, it is said to be “dumping” the product. Hence in the case of solar panels a member country can allege that China is "dumping" their products in their market which has caused an injury to their local industry. This is covered by the Agreement on Anti-dumping in the WTO Agreements.

2. Another aspect of the dispute is the issue of facilitating local, domestic industry by offering subsidies as well as mandating local content requirements in projects. The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures  essentially outlines what are "prohibited subsidies" and what are "actionable subsidies" under the WTO.

Article 3 of this Agreement states

 "3.1        Except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture, the following subsidies, within the meaning of Article 1, shall be prohibited:

(a)        subsidies contingent, in law or in fact(4), whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon export performance, including those illustrated in Annex I(5);

(b)        subsidies contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods.

3.2        A Member shall neither grant nor maintain subsidies referred to in paragraph 1."

Hence, where a subsidy is given to a project on the condition that domestic goods should be used over imported goods it is a prohibited subsidy. This is a prohibited subsidy. Does the JNNSM support fall under this category?


3. "Specific" subsidies are also "actionable" under the Agreement. As per Article 5 , action can be initiated against specific subsidies if it can be proven that they caused, inter alia, injury to the domestic industry. Though the Chinese subsidies may not fall under prohibited subsidies, can a case be made out that they are actionable subsidies since it caused injury to the domestic U.S.industry? This would require marshalling of evidence to that effect.


4. Does the requirement of domestic content violate the "national treatment" principle enshrined in the GATT Agreement?


While Japan and EU have initiated WTO Dispute Settlement procedures against Canada in regard to solar energy products, it is surprising that China has not been under the scanner here. It is clear that one would have to strategically and creatively craft one's renewable energy policy keeping in mind its implications on the various obligations under the WTO. This would require not only an understanding of how the renewable energy sector is across the world but also a thorough knowledge of the interpretation of the WTO Agreements.