Clarification (1)

[Clarification]

1. It would be grateful to receive the clarification in regard to the phrase ‘commitments to reduce its GHG emissions’ Ekologia is referring to in terms of global climate change. The Paris Agreement was made in December, 2015 whereas the legal dispute between Ekologia and Carbonia began in July of 2015, and the Dispute Settlement Board of WTO was made in September of 2015. In short, the legal dispute began before the Paris Agreement was made. Is Ekologia’s ‘commitment,’ then referring to Kyoto Protocol regime that began since 1997?

 → The phrase in question needs to be understood as ‘voluntary reduction’ rather than mandatory reduction.

 2. We would like to receive clarification on the phrase ‘the government of Ekologia to pursue heavy regulation of SCO2 technology-related sector.’ It is confusing because heavy regulation of a sector prohibits active investment of industrial players. Does this mean that the government of Ekologia gave a right of market monopoly for STS to operate and regulated other actors in the industry? Or is it that the government regulated all enterprises in the SCO2 technology related sector?

→ Here, ‘heavy regulation’ refers more likely to specified regulation; it does not necessarily mean conferring the monopoly right

3. What is the nationality of STS?

→ STS is described “as a leading private company in the domestic clean energy technology”

4. the Ekologian government obliged tenderers to use at least 50% of Ekologia-sourced inputs ‘in order to stimulate local investment.’ In this context, is the stimulus in local investment restricted to Helliostat related green technology field or Ekologian industry as a whole?

→ It should be interpreted in explicit contexts.

5. what does it mean by ‘harm the corresponding industry of Ekologia’s trading partners’? what kind of harm was inflicted to Carbonia for how long, and to what extent as a result of Ekologia’s policy? Are there any substantial and empirically proven harms to Carbonia or is it that the legislation itself poses potential harm to Carbonia’s industry?

→ This is a matter of the applicant’s burden of proof

6. Does the remark that ‘Carbonia does not question the objectives of Ekologia’ mean that the government of Carbonia would not question not only the legitimacy of clean electricity generation scheme of Ekologia, but also their objective to promote domestic industry?

→ The object, here, is related to the development of clean energy.

7. Is Ekologia also one of original members of WTO?

→ Yes, as provided in the very first sentence of the Problem.

8. We would like to know the economic backgrounds of the two countries of Ekologia and Carbonia. Are they both developed and advanced countries with the technological, social and political capacity or is one of them underdeveloped/developing country?

→ Irrelevant to solving the Problem.

9. We would like to know whether in the open tendering process for procurement of Helliostat, other enterprises or industrial actors took part. Was it only the STS who participated in the bidding process?

→Who has participated in the bidding is irrelevant to solving the Problem.

10. What is the result of open tendering? Is the tendering process ongoing? Or does it already have legally binding effect and the tenderers are operating their businesses?

→ Irrelevant to solving the Problem

11. Is SCO2 turbine an existent, technologically feasible one? (or it exists but not commercially feasible?)

→ It is existing, however its existence is irrelevant to the issues of the Problem.

11. What is the exact purpose of Ekologia government to procure Helliostat when it seems that the SCO2 technology is non-existent in the status quo.

             a) Are Helliostat capable of generating electricity by connecting it to conventional form of turbines or is it only functionally applicable to SCO2 turbines?

→ it can be applicable to both.

             b) Does the procurement of Helliostat has other commercial purposes such as to resell them to private sectors?

→ Commercial resale issue is not mentioned in the Problem.

12. The Ekologian government claims ‘the purchase notice with the MRDCL will be required as a Government Procurement derogation.’ Is the Ekologian government referring ‘derogation’ in the context of GPA article III or the threshold that they have set in Annex3 GPA schedule?

→ It can be approached as an ordinary context of ‘derogation’ in the context of the trade law jurisprudence.

13. We would like to know the pronunciation of every abbreviated form. The list is; CESA, NCTA, CES and SCO2

→ Pronounce Alphabetically, please.

15. The derogation clause of GPA schedule of Ekologia on Annex 3 made as a product of consensus between Ekologia and Carbonia? Or was it made arbitrarily by the Ekologia government?

→ The questions need to be answered by the participants. A general and overall understanding of GPA is necessary.