Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-385"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061024.38.2-385"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@cs1
"Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne takke ordføreren, fru Muscardini, og Udvalget om International Handel for deres udmærkede arbejde med dette vigtige emne.
Vi vil forsøge at udnytte enhver bilateral handelsaftale med tredjelande til at sikre, at vores partnerlande påtager sig konkrete forpligtelser med hensyn til retfærdig brug af handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter. Det er ikke et alternativ til at styrke og forbedre WTO's regler, der tværtimod understøttes heraf. Det er en måde at få indført en forsikring på, så vi kan bruge alle tilgængelige metoder til at bringe fornuft og disciplin ind i driften af disse instrumenter. Det vil i særdeleshed gælde for de lande, der krænker dem mest.
God praksis er lige så vigtigt som gode regler. Derfor bruger Kommissionens afdelinger megen tid og mange ressourcer på at yde teknisk bistand til tredjelande, der bliver nye brugere af handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter. Det er vores mål, at de skal bruge dem på en retfærdig og afbalanceret måde og i overensstemmelse med vores egne høje standarder.
Disse anstrengelser synes at bære frugt. Ved udgangen af 2005 var der et kærkomment skift fra de foregående års tendens med et markant fald i antallet af handelsbeskyttelsessager imod Fællesskabets eksportører fra 33 i 2004 til 19 i 2005. Markedsadgang inklusive en retfærdig og ordentlig gennemførelse af WTO's handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter af vores handelspartnere står højt på vores prioritetsliste, og vi vil fortsat tage alle nødvendige skridt for at sikre, at vores eksport ikke straffes urimeligt.
Det er selvfølgelig vanskeligt at følge hver eneste sag med vores nuværende ressourcer, og jeg vil bestemt gerne gøre mere for vores eksportører - specielt for de små og mellemstore virksomheder, der ofte har begrænset erfaring på dette område. EU skal forblive et eksempel til efterfølgelse.
Som det påpeges i betænkningen, betragtes vi som en moderat bruger af handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter. Det omdømme er fortjent, og sådan skal det fortsat være. Det er i denne ånd, at jeg for nylig iværksatte en refleksionsproces om, hvordan Europas handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter såsom antidumpinginstrumentet fungerer i den moderne globale økonomi. En bred offentlig høring vil finde sted i starten af 2007 baseret på en grønbog, der forventes offentliggjort i løbet af de kommende måneder.
Denne høring vil sætte Kommissionen i stand til at trække på en lang række synspunkter og identificere, om der er grundlag for at forbedre vores regler og praksis yderligere. Vores handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter kan være et meget vigtigt bidrag til at sikre både fri og retfærdig handel og dermed stimulere vores konkurrenceevne. Det vil kræve et stærkt og tæt samarbejde med alle interessenter inklusive medlemsstaterne og industrien - samt Europa-Parlamentets støtte og engagement vil jeg tilføje.
EU er en stor eksportør på verdensplan, og det udsætter os for handelsbeskyttelsesforanstaltninger fra tredjelande. Når sådanne foranstaltninger træffes i overensstemmelse med WTO-reglerne, kan og skal vi ikke klage, og det gør vi heller ikke. Det er imidlertid ikke altid tilfældet, og disse foranstaltninger kan let blive til en alvorlig og uberettiget hindring for vores legitime markedsadgangsmuligheder.
Derfor skal vi nøje overvåge tredjelandes foranstaltninger over for vores eksport og intervenere for at minimere sådanne foranstaltningers negative effekt over for vores virksomheder. Og vi skal bestemt være årvågne. Hvor det er muligt, foretrækker vi diplomatiets vej, der er den hurtigste og mest effektive måde at løse disse problemer på, når vi har partnere, der ønsker at løse dem. Men når diplomatiet fejler, tøver vi ikke med at ty til WTO-paneler, sådan som vi har ret til at gøre.
Både den diplomatiske og den juridiske tilgang har haft betydelig succes. Tag f.eks. de indiske sager, der nævnes i betænkningen. Diplomatiet har resulteret i fjernelsen af hele 12 foranstaltninger. Vi håber også på betydelig succes for de landbrugsprodukttilfælde, De har identificeret.
Det er velkendt, at USA udgør et tilbagevendende problem for os i denne sammenhæng. Landet går ind for fri handel, men dets brug af handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumentet ses af mange som urimeligt på visse områder og specielt i stålsektoren, hvor vi har argumenteret imod visse praksis i årevis i forbindelse med mange af landets dumping- og tilskudsforanstaltninger. Vi har haft stor succes i Genève, men helt ærligt så er det en lang og hård kamp bare at få dem til at gennemføre de retlige tvangsmidler for de tvister, de har tabt.
Vi kan ikke løse alt gennem diplomati eller retssager. Derfor glæder vi os over Deres støtte til de forslag, vi stillede under Doha-runden om at styrke reglerne og disciplinerne vedrørende brugen af antidumping- og udligningsforanstaltninger.
Runden er suspenderet, hvilket jeg dybt beklager og er meget ked af, men vi kæmper hårdt for at få den genstartet. Med hensyn til handelsbeskyttelse vil det sætte os i stand til at søge forbedrede discipliner i overensstemmelse med EU's praksis på området, hvilket vil gøre det vanskeligere for lande at misbruge systemet, som der nok desværre er nogle, der er mere end parate til at gøre. Vi har brug for skrappere discipliner i antidumpingsystemet.
Vi har brug for større gennemsigtighed i driften af handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter. Vi har brug for mindre vilkårlighed fra regeringernes side. En sådan opførsel miskrediterer simpelthen reglerne. Den bringer systemet i miskredit, og den giver ikke tiltro til det multilaterale handelssystem og dets vigtigste institution, WTO.
Vi er enige med Dem i, at tvistbilæggelsesmekanismen er et vigtigt træk ved WTO-systemet, der skal beskyttes, men vi arbejder hårdt for at forbedre den, så der kan skaffes hurtigere retsmidler."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich möchte der Berichterstatterin, Frau Muscardini, und dem Ausschuss für internationalen Handel für ihre ausgezeichnete Arbeit zu diesem bedeutenden Thema danken.
Wir werden jedes bilaterale Handelsabkommen mit Drittländern nutzen, um sicherzustellen, dass unsere Partnerländer spezielle Verpflichtungen zur gerechten Anwendung der Handelsschutzinstrumente eingehen. Dies ist keine Alternative zur Stärkung und Verbesserung der WTO-Bestimmungen. Vielmehr wird das dadurch untermauert. Es ist eine Möglichkeit, eine Absicherung zu bekommen, damit wir alle verfügbaren Methoden nutzen können, die Anwendung dieser Instrumente vernünftig und diszipliniert vonstatten gehen zu lassen. Dies würde besonders für jene Länder gelten, die sie am meisten missbrauchen.
Bewährte Praktiken sind ebenso wichtig wie bewährte Bestimmungen. Daher verwenden die Dienststellen der Kommission einen Großteil ihrer Zeit und Ressourcen darauf, Drittländer, die die handelspolitischen Schutzmaßnahmen erstmals anwenden, technisch zu unterstützen. Wir streben an, dass sie diese Maßnahmen gerecht und ausgewogen und im Einklang mit unseren hohen Standards einsetzen.
Diese Bemühungen tragen offenbar Früchte. Ende 2005 haben wir eine willkommene Abweichung von der Tendenz vorhergehender Jahre festgestellt, denn die Anzahl der Fälle, in denen handelspolitische Schutzmaßnahmen gegen die Exporteure der Gemeinschaft ergriffen wurden, war von 33 im Jahr 2004 auf 19 im Jahr 2005 gesunken. Der Marktzugang einschließlich einer gerechten und angemessenen Anwendung der Handelsschutzinstrumente der WTO durch unsere Handelspartner steht auf unserer Prioritätenliste sehr weit oben, und wir werden weiterhin alle erforderlichen Schritte unternehmen, um zu gewährleisten, dass unsere Exporte nicht ungebührlich benachteiligt werden.
Natürlich ist es schwierig, jeden Einzelfall mit unseren aktuellen Mitteln zu verfolgen, und ich würde natürlich gern mehr für unsere Exporteure tun, insbesondere für die kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen, die in diesem Bereich oft sehr unerfahren sind. Die EU muss weiterhin ein Vorbild sein, dem andere folgen können.
Im Bericht wird daran erinnert, dass wir Instrumente zum Schutz des Handels moderat handhaben. Diesen Ruf haben wir zu Recht, und das muss so bleiben. In diesem Sinne habe ich vor Kurzem den Anstoß zu einem Reflexionsprozess gegeben, wie die europäischen Instrumente zum Schutz des Handels – wie etwa das Antidumpinginstrument – in der modernen Weltwirtschaft funktionieren. Anfang 2007 wird auf der Grundlage des in den nächsten Monaten erwarteten Grünbuchs eine umfassende öffentliche Konsultation stattfinden.
Aufgrund dieser Konsultation wird die Kommission auf zahlreiche Meinungen zurückgreifen und ermitteln können, ob unsere Bestimmungen und Praktiken noch verbesserungswürdig sind. Unsere Handelsschutzinstrumente können wesentlich zur Sicherung eines freien und fairen Handels beitragen, und das gibt unserer Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Auftrieb. Dazu wird eine intensive und enge Zusammenarbeit mit allen Interessengruppen, einschließlich der Mitgliedstaaten und der Industrie, und, das möchte ich hinzufügen, auch die Unterstützung und Beteiligung des Europäischen Parlaments gehören.
Die Europäische Union ist einer der weltweit größten Exporteure, und damit sind wir Handelsschutzmaßnahmen von Drittländern ausgesetzt. Wenn solche Maßnahmen unter Einhaltung der WTO-Regeln eingeleitet werden, können und sollten wir uns nicht beklagen, und das tun wir ja auch nicht. Aber so liegen die Dinge nicht immer, und diese Maßnahmen können ganz schnell zu einer ernsten und unbegründeten Behinderung unserer rechtmäßigen Marktzugangsmöglichkeiten werden.
Deshalb müssen wir die Maßnahmen von Drittstaaten zum Schutz vor unseren Exporten genau überwachen und einschreiten, um deren negative Auswirkungen auf unsere Unternehmen auf ein Minimum zu beschränken. Und wir sollten natürlich wachsam sein. Wenn möglich, bevorzugen wir den diplomatischen Weg als den schnelleren und effektiveren Weg zur Lösung dieser Probleme, wenn wir Partner haben, die an einer Lösung interessiert sind. Wenn die Diplomatie aber versagt, zögern wir nicht, auf WTO-Gremien zurückzugreifen, was unser gutes Recht ist.
Sowohl durch Diplomatie als auch durch Streitbeilegungsverfahren konnten beachtliche Erfolge erzielt werden. Nehmen wir zum Beispiel die im Bericht genannten indischen Fälle. Diplomatie hat erreicht, dass immerhin zwölf Maßnahmen eingestellt wurden. Wir hoffen auch auf spürbare Erfolge bei den von Ihnen aufgeführten Fällen im Agrarsektor.
Es ist allgemein bekannt, dass die USA in diesem Zusammenhang für uns immer wieder ein Problem sind. Sie sind für den freien Handel, wenden aber Handelsschutzmaßnahmen in einer Weise an, die viele für unangemessen halten. Dies gilt besonders für den Stahlsektor, wo wir seit Jahren bei vielen ihrer Dumping- und Subventionsmaßnahmen gegen gewisse Vorgehensweisen argumentieren. Wir sind in Genf ein ganzes Stück vorangekommen, aber – ehrlich gesagt – ist es sehr mühselig, sogar in Streitfällen, die sie verloren haben, sie dazu bringen, die Abhilfemaßnahmen durchzuführen.
Wir können nicht alles mit Diplomatie oder im Rechtsweg lösen. Darum begrüßen wir Ihre Unterstützung der Vorschläge, die wir in der Doha-Runde zur Verschärfung der Bestimmungen und der Disziplin in Bezug auf die Anwendung von Antidumping- und Ausgleichsmaßnahmen vorgelegt haben.
Die Doha-Runde ist ausgesetzt, was ich zutiefst bedauere und missbillige, aber wir setzen alles daran, sie wieder aufzunehmen. Für den Handelsschutz könnten wir damit bessere Regelungen entsprechend der EU-Praxis anstreben und den Ländern einen Missbrauch des Systems erschweren, was einige, fürchte ich, nur allzu bereitwillig tun würden. Wir brauchen strengere Regeln im Antidumpingsystem.
Wir brauchen eine größere Transparenz bei der Anwendung handelspolitischer Schutzinstrumente. Wir brauchen weniger Willkür seitens der Regierungen. Ein solches Verhalten bringt einfach die Bestimmungen in Misskredit. Es bringt das System in einen schlechten Ruf und lässt das multilaterale Handelssystem und seine wichtigste Institution, die WTO, nicht gut dastehen.
Wir stimmen Ihnen zu, dass der Streitbeilegungsmechanismus ein wesentliches Merkmal des WTO-Systems ist, das geschützt werden muss. Wir arbeiten jedoch auch intensiv an seiner Verbesserung, damit schneller Rechtsmittel eingelegt werden können."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω την εισηγήτρια, την κ. Muscardini, και την Επιτροπή Διεθνούς Εμπορίου για την εξαιρετική εργασία τους στο σημαντικό αυτό θέμα.
Θα αδράξουμε την ευκαιρία κάθε διμερούς εμπορικής συμφωνίας με τρίτες χώρες για να διασφαλίσουμε ότι οι χώρες εταίροι μας αναλαμβάνουν συγκεκριμένες υποχρεώσεις σχετικά με τη θεμιτή χρήση των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας. Αυτό δεν αποτελεί εναλλακτική λύση της ενίσχυσης και βελτίωσης των κανόνων στον ΠΟΕ. Αντιθέτως, την υποστηρίζει. Αποτελεί έναν τρόπο δημιουργίας ασφάλειας, ώστε να μπορούμε να χρησιμοποιήσουμε όλες τις διαθέσιμες μεθόδους για να εκλογικεύσουμε και να κατηγοριοποιήσουμε τη λειτουργία αυτών των μέσων. Αυτό ισχύει ιδιαίτερα για τις χώρες εκείνες που τα εκμεταλλεύονται περισσότερο.
Οι καλές πρακτικές είναι εξίσου σημαντικές με τους καλούς κανόνες. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, οι υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής αφιερώνουν πολύ χρόνο και πολλούς πόρους για την παροχή τεχνικής βοήθειας σε τρίτες χώρες που αποτελούν νέους χρήστες των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας. Στόχος μας είναι να τα εφαρμόζουν κατά τρόπο θεμιτό και ισορροπημένο και σύμφωνα με τα δικά μας υψηλά πρότυπα.
Οι προσπάθειες αυτές φαίνεται να αποδίδουν καρπούς. Στο τέλος του 2005 σημειώθηκε μια ευπρόσδεκτη μεταβολή από την τάση προηγούμενων ετών, με σημαντική μείωση του αριθμού των υποθέσεων εμπορικής άμυνας κατά εξαγωγέων της Κοινότητας, από 33 το 2004 σε 19 το 2005. Η πρόσβαση στις αγορές, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της θεμιτής και σωστής εφαρμογής των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας του ΠΟΕ από τους εμπορικούς εταίρους μας, ιεραρχείται ψηλά στον κατάλογο των προτεραιοτήτων μας και θα συνεχίσουμε να λαμβάνουμε τα μέτρα που απαιτούνται για να διασφαλίσουμε ότι οι εξαγωγές μας δεν υφίστανται αδικαιολόγητες κυρώσεις.
Φυσικά, είναι δύσκολο να παρακολουθούμε κάθε υπόθεση ξεχωριστά με τους υφιστάμενους πόρους μας και ασφαλώς θα ήθελα να κάνουμε περισσότερα για τους εξαγωγείς μας, ιδιαίτερα τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, που συχνά έχουν μικρή εμπειρία σε αυτόν τον τομέα. Η ΕΕ πρέπει να εξακολουθήσει να αποτελεί παράδειγμα προς μίμηση.
Όπως υπενθυμίζει η έκθεση, θεωρούμαστε μετριοπαθής χρήστης των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας. Αυτήν την φήμη την αξίζουμε και πρέπει να την συντηρήσουμε. Με αυτό το πνεύμα ξεκίνησα πρόσφατα μια διαδικασία προβληματισμού για το πώς λειτουργούν στη σύγχρονη παγκόσμια οικονομία τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας της Ευρώπης, όπως είναι το μέσο αντιντάμπινγκ. Στις αρχές του 2007 θα διεξαχθεί ευρεία δημόσια διαβούλευση, με βάση ένα Πράσινο Βιβλίο που αναμένεται τους προσεχείς μήνες.
Η εν λόγω διαβούλευση θα επιτρέψει στην Επιτροπή να αντλήσει από ένα ευρύ φάσμα απόψεων και να προσδιορίσει αν υπάρχει περιθώριο περαιτέρω βελτίωσης των κανόνων και των πρακτικών μας. Τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνάς μας μπορούν να συμβάλουν σημαντικά στη διασφάλιση τόσο του ελεύθερου όσο και του θεμιτού εμπορίου, τονώνοντας συνεπώς την ανταγωνιστικότητά μας. Αυτό θα απαιτήσει έντονη και στενή συνεργασία με όλα τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των κρατών μελών και της βιομηχανίας και, θα προσέθετα, τη στήριξη και τη συμμετοχή του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.
Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι μείζων εξαγωγέας παγκοσμίως και αυτό μας αφήνει εκτεθειμένους σε ενέργειες εμπορικής άμυνας τρίτων χωρών. Όταν αναλαμβάνεται τέτοια δράση σύμφωνα με τους κανονισμούς του ΠΟΕ, δεν μπορούμε και δεν θα πρέπει να διαμαρτυρόμαστε, και δεν το κάνουμε. Ωστόσο, αυτό δεν συμβαίνει πάντοτε και οι εν λόγω ενέργειες μπορούν εύκολα να αποτελέσουν σοβαρό και αδικαιολόγητο πρόσκομμα στις θεμιτές ευκαιρίες μας για πρόσβαση στην αγορά.
Επομένως, πρέπει να παρακολουθούμε στενά τις ενέργειες τρίτων χωρών κατά των εξαγωγών μας και να παρεμβαίνουμε για να ελαχιστοποιούμε τον αρνητικό αντίκτυπο τέτοιων ενεργειών εις βάρος των εταιρειών μας. Και θα πρέπει σίγουρα να επαγρυπνούμε. Όποτε είναι δυνατόν προτιμούμε τη διπλωματική οδό, που είναι ο ταχύτερος και ο αποδοτικότερος τρόπος επίλυσης αυτών των θεμάτων όταν έχουμε εταίρους που επιθυμούν την επίλυσή τους. Όταν όμως η διπλωματία αποτυγχάνει, δεν διστάζουμε να καταφεύγουμε στις ειδικές ομάδες του ΠΟΕ, όπως έχουμε δικαίωμα.
Τόσο η διπλωματική όσο και η δικαστική προσέγγιση στέφθηκαν από αξιοσημείωτη επιτυχία. Πάρτε, για παράδειγμα, τις ινδικές υποθέσεις που αναφέρονται στην έκθεση. Η διπλωματία είχε ως αποτέλεσμα την άρση 12 τουλάχιστον μέτρων. Ελπίζουμε επίσης ότι και οι υποθέσεις των γεωργικών προϊόντων που επισημάνατε θα έχουν σημαντική επιτυχία.
Είναι ευρέως γνωστό ότι οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες αποτελούν για εμάς επαναλαμβανόμενο πρόβλημα στο πλαίσιο αυτό. Είναι υπέρ του ελεύθερου εμπορίου, αλλά ο τρόπος που χρησιμοποιούν το μέσο εμπορικής άμυνας θεωρείται από πολλούς παράλογος σε ορισμένα θέματα. Αυτό ήταν ιδιαίτερα εμφανές στον τομέα του χάλυβα, όπου επί χρόνια καταφερόμεθα εναντίον συγκεκριμένων πρακτικών για μεγάλο αριθμό μέτρων που έλαβαν σχετικά με το ντάμπινγκ και τις επιδοτήσεις. Σημειώσαμε σημαντική επιτυχία στη Γενεύη όμως, ειλικρινά, απαιτείται μακρύς και δύσκολος αγώνας ακόμα και για να καταφέρουμε να εφαρμόσουν επανορθωτικά μέτρα στις διαφορές που έχασαν.
Δεν μπορούμε να επιλύσουμε τα πάντα μέσω της διπλωματίας ή της δικαστικής οδού. Γι’ αυτό χαιρετίζουμε τη υποστήριξή σας στις προτάσεις που καταθέσαμε στον Γύρο της Ντόχα για ενίσχυση των κανόνων και των κατηγοριών που διέπουν τη χρήση μέτρων αντιντάμπινγκ και αντισταθμιστικών μέτρων.
Ο Γύρος διακόπηκε, κάτι για το οποίο λυπούμαι βαθύτατα, αλλά αγωνιζόμαστε για να ξεκινήσει και πάλι. Για την εμπορική άμυνα θα μας επιτρέψει να αναζητήσουμε βελτιωμένες κατηγορίες σύμφωνα με την πρακτική της ΕΕ στον εν λόγω τομέα, καθιστώντας δυσκολότερη την εκμετάλλευση του συστήματος από τις χώρες, κάτι που φοβούμαι ότι μερικές από αυτές είναι έτοιμες να κάνουν. Χρειαζόμαστε αυστηρές κατηγορίες στο σύστημα αντιντάμπινγκ.
Χρειαζόμαστε μεγαλύτερη διαφάνεια στη λειτουργία των μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας. Χρειαζόμαστε λιγότερη αυθαιρεσία εκ μέρους των κυβερνήσεων. Τέτοια συμπεριφορά απλώς απαξιώνει τους κανόνες. Δυσφημεί το σύστημα και δεν προσθέτει κύρος στο πολυμερές εμπορικό σύστημα και το κύριο θεσμικό του όργανο, τον ΠΟΕ.
Συμφωνούμε μαζί σας ότι ο μηχανισμός επίλυσης διαφορών αποτελεί ουσιώδες χαρακτηριστικό του συστήματος του ΠΟΕ, που πρέπει να προστατεύσουμε, αλλά εργαζόμαστε σκληρά για να τον βελτιώσουμε ώστε να μπορούν να επιτυγχάνονται ταχύτερα επανορθωτικά μέτρα."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, quiero dar las gracias a la ponente, la señora Muscardini, y a la Comisión de Comercio Internacional por el excelente trabajo que han realizado sobre esta importante cuestión.
Aprovecharemos la oportunidad que nos ofrezcan todos los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales firmados con terceros países para conseguir que nuestros países asociados contraigan obligaciones específicas respecto al buen uso de los instrumentos de defensa comercial. Eso no viene a sustituir el refuerzo y la mejora de las normas de la OMC, sino que los complementa. Es una forma de conseguir mayores salvaguardias, de manera que podamos hacer uso de todos los métodos a nuestro alcance para dotar de sentido común y disciplina al funcionamiento de estos instrumentos. Eso se aplica sobre todo a los países que abusan más de ellos.
Las buenas prácticas son tan importantes como las buenas normas. Por eso los servicios de la Comisión han dedicado mucho tiempo y recursos a ofrecer asistencia técnica a terceros países que utilizaban por primera vez los instrumentos de defensa comercial. Nuestro objetivo es que apliquen esos instrumentos de una manera justa y equilibrada, respetando nuestras normas estrictas.
Estas iniciativas parecen estar dando sus frutos. A finales de 2005 pudimos constatar un cambio satisfactorio con respecto a la tendencia de años anteriores, con un descenso considerable del número de casos de defensa comercial iniciados contra exportadores comunitarios, de 33 en 2004 a 19 en 2005. El acceso al mercado, incluida la aplicación correcta y oportuna de los instrumentos de defensa comercial de la OMC por parte de nuestros socios comerciales, ocupa un alto lugar en nuestra lista de prioridades y seguiremos adoptando todas las medidas necesarias para conseguir que nuestras exportaciones no se vean indebidamente penalizadas.
Por supuesto, es difícil hacer un seguimiento de todos y cada uno de los casos con nuestros recursos actuales y está claro que me gustaría hacer más por nuestros exportadores, sobre todo por las pequeñas y medianas empresas, que a menudo tienen poca experiencia en este ámbito. La UE tiene que seguir siendo un ejemplo para otros.
Como se recuerda en el informe, se nos considera un usuario moderado de los instrumentos de defensa comercial. Ese prestigio es merecido y así debe seguir siendo. Con semejante espíritu hemos iniciado recientemente un proceso de reflexión sobre el funcionamiento de los instrumentos de defensa comercial de Europa, como el instrumento antidúmping, en la economía mundial moderna. A principios de 2007 tendrá lugar una amplia consulta a los ciudadanos, basada en un Libro Verde que se publicará en los próximos meses.
Esa consulta permitirá a la Comisión conocer opiniones muy diversas y determinar si todavía queda campo para mejorar más nuestras normas y prácticas. Nuestros instrumentos de defensa comercial pueden realizar una importante contribución para garantizar tanto el comercio libre como el comercio justo, fomentando con ello nuestra competitividad. Para ello hará falta una cooperación estrecha y directa con todas las partes interesadas, entre ellas los Estados miembros y la industria y, yo añadiría, el apoyo y la participación del Parlamento Europeo.
La Unión Europea es un importante exportador a todo el mundo y eso nos expone a medidas de defensa comercial adoptadas por terceros países. Cuando esas medidas se adoptan respetando las reglas de la OMC, no podemos ni debemos quejarnos, y no lo hacemos. Sin embargo, no siempre sucede así y esas medidas pueden convertirse fácilmente en un impedimento grave e injustificado para nuestras oportunidades de acceso legítimo a los mercados.
Por tanto, tenemos que vigilar de cerca las acciones de terceros países contra nuestras exportaciones e intervenir para minimizar la repercusión negativa que pueden tener para nuestras empresas. Y no podemos bajar la guardia. En la medida de lo posible, somos partidarios de la vía diplomática, que es la forma más rápida y eficiente de resolver estas cuestiones cuando tenemos socios que quieren darles solución. Pero cuando la diplomacia fracasa, no dudamos en recurrir a los grupos de la OMC, como es nuestro derecho.
Tanto por la vía diplomática como por la del litigio se han conseguido éxitos notables. Pensemos, por ejemplo, en los casos de la India que se mencionan en el informe. La diplomacia ha conseguido que se retiren no menos de 12 medidas. Esperamos conseguir también un importante éxito con los casos de productos agrícolas que se han mencionado.
Es bien sabido que los Estados Unidos representan un problema recurrente para nosotros en este contexto. Son partidarios del libre comercio, pero muchos piensan que el uso que hacen del instrumento de defensa comercial es poco razonable en algunas cuestiones. Destaca sobre todo el sector siderúrgico, donde llevamos años manifestándonos en contra de algunas prácticas relacionadas con muchas de sus medidas de dúmping y subvención. Hemos logrado un éxito considerable en Ginebra, pero, sinceramente, cuesta mucho esfuerzo conseguir luego que adopten medidas correctivas cuando pierden litigios.
No podemos resolverlo todo por la vía de la diplomacia o los litigios. Por eso nos complace que hayan apoyado ustedes las propuestas que presentamos en la Ronda de Doha para reforzar las normas y disciplinas que regulan el uso de medidas antidúmping y contra las falsificaciones.
La Ronda se ha suspendido, cosa que deploro y lamento profundamente, pero estamos tratando por todos los medios que se reanude. En cuanto a la defensa comercial, eso nos permitiría adoptar mejores disciplinas en línea con la práctica de la UE en este ámbito, haciendo más difícil a los países un uso abusivo del sistema, cosa que me temo que algunos están demasiado dispuestos a intentar. Necesitamos disciplinas más estrictas en el sistema antidúmping.
Necesitamos más transparencia en el funcionamiento de los instrumentos de defensa comercial. Necesitamos menos arbitrariedad por parte de los Gobiernos. Esa conducta no hace más que desacreditar las normas. Comporta descrédito para el sistema y resta crédito al sistema de comercio multilateral y a su principal institución, la OMC.
Estamos de acuerdo con ustedes en que el mecanismo de resolución de conflictos es un rasgo fundamental del sistema de la OMC, que tiene que protegerse, pero estamos tratando de mejorarlo para que puedan conseguirse remedios más rápidos."@es20
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, haluan kiittää esittelijä Muscardinia ja kansainvälisen kaupan valiokuntaa erinomaisesta työstä tässä tärkeässä kysymyksessä.
Hyödynnämme yhteisön ulkopuolisten maiden kanssa tehtäviä kahdenvälisiä kauppasopimuksia varmistaaksemme, että kumppanimaamme huolehtivat erityisvelvoitteista, jotka koskevat kaupan suojavälineiden oikeudenmukaista käyttöä. Tämä ei ole vaihtoehto WTO:n sääntöjen vahvistamiselle ja parantamiselle. Päinvastoin, sillä tuetaan tätä työtä. Kahdenväliset kauppasopimukset ovat yksi tapa saada turvaa, jotta voimme hyödyntää kaikkia käytettävissä olevia menetelmiä järkeistääksemme näiden välineiden käyttöä ja tehdäksemme siitä kurinalaisempaa. Tämä pätee erityisesti niihin maihin, jotka käyttävät kaupan suojavälineitä eniten väärin.
Hyvät käytännöt ovat yhtä tärkeitä kuin hyvät säännöt. Tästä syystä komission yksiköt käyttävät erittäin paljon aikaa ja voimavaroja antaakseen teknistä apua yhteisön ulkopuolisille maille, joista tulee kaupan suojavälineiden uusia käyttäjiä. Tavoitteenamme on, että kyseiset maat käyttävät näitä välineitä oikeudenmukaisella ja tasapainoisella tavalla, joka vastaa myös omia tiukkoja normejamme.
Asianomaiset toimet näyttävät kantavan hedelmää. Vuoden 2005 lopussa edellisten vuosien suuntauksessa tapahtui myönteinen käänne, kun yhteisön viejiä vastaan vireille pantujen kaupan suojeluun liittyvien tapausten määrä laski merkittävästi, 33 tapauksesta vuonna 2004 19 tapaukseen vuonna 2005. Markkinoillepääsy ja WTO:n kaupan suojavälineiden oikeudenmukainen ja asianmukainen käyttö kauppakumppanimaissamme ovat korkealla ensisijaisten tavoitteiden luettelossamme, ja ryhdymme jatkossakin kaikkiin tarvittaviin toimiin varmistaaksemme, ettei vientituotteitamme kohdella epäoikeudenmukaisesti.
Jokaisen yksittäistapauksen seuraaminen on tietysti vaikeaa nykyisillä voimavaroillamme, ja haluaisin ehdottomasti tehdä enemmän viejiemme ja erityisesti pk-yritysten hyväksi, sillä niillä on usein vähän kokemusta tältä alalta. EU:n on oltava myös tulevaisuudessa esimerkki, jota muut voivat seurata.
Kuten mietinnössä muistutetaan, yhteisöä pidetään kaupan suojakeinojen kohtuukäyttäjänä. Tämä maine on ansaittu, ja se on säilytettävä. Samassa hengessä käynnistin äskettäin pohdintaprosessin siitä, miten EU:n kaupan suojavälineet, kuten polkumyynnin vastainen väline, toimivat nykyaikaisessa globaalissa taloudessa. Laaja julkinen kuuleminen asiasta järjestetään vuoden 2007 alussa, ja se perustuu vihreään kirjaan, joka on määrä julkistaa tulevina kuukausina.
Kuuleminen antaa komissiolle mahdollisuuden hyödyntää useita eri näkemyksiä ja määritellä, onko sääntöjämme ja käytäntöjämme mahdollista parantaa entisestään. Kaupan suojavälineillämme voidaan edistää merkittävästi sekä vapaan että oikeudenmukaisen kaupan turvaamista ja parantaa siten kilpailukykyämme. Tähän sisältyy vahva ja tiivis yhteistyö kaikkien asianosaisten kanssa, myös jäsenvaltioiden ja teollisuuden kanssa, ja lisäksi Euroopan parlamentin tuki ja osallistuminen.
Euroopan unioni on maailmanlaajuisesti merkittävä viejä, mikä altistaa meidät yhteisön ulkopuolisten maiden kaupan suojatoimenpiteille. Kun tällaisia toimia toteutetaan WTO:n sääntöjen mukaisesti, emme voi eikä meidän pitäisi valittaa, kuten emme teekään. Näin ei kuitenkaan aina ole, ja näistä toimista voi helposti tulla vakava ja perusteeton este laillisille mahdollisuuksillemme päästä yhteisön ulkopuolisten maiden markkinoille.
Meidän on siten seurattava tarkasti yhteisön ulkopuolisten maiden vientituotteidemme vastaisia toimia ja puututtava niihin minimoidaksemme tällaisten toimien kielteiset vaikutukset yrityksiimme. Meidän on tietysti oltava valppaita. Suosimme mahdollisuuksien mukaan diplomatian keinoja, jotka ovat nopeampi ja tehokkain tapa ratkaista nämä kysymykset silloin, kun meillä on kumppanit, jotka haluavat ratkaista ne. Jos diplomatiassa kuitenkin epäonnistutaan, emme epäröi viedä asiaa WTO:n paneelien käsiteltäväksi, koska meillä on siihen oikeus.
Sekä diplomaattinen lähestymistapa että riitojenratkaisuun perustuva lähestymistapa ovat olleet huomattavan menestyksellisiä. Otetaan esimerkiksi mietinnössä mainitut Intian polkumyyntitapaukset. Diplomatian avulla on saatu poistettua peräti 12 toimenpidettä. Toivomme myös huomattavaa menestystä mainitsemissanne maataloustuotteita koskevissa tapauksissa.
On yleisesti tiedossa, että Yhdysvallat aiheuttaa meille toistuvasti ongelmia tässä yhteydessä. Yhdysvallat kannattaa vapaakauppaa, mutta monet katsovat sen käyttävän kaupan suojavälineitä perusteettomasti tietyissä kysymyksissä. Tämä on ollut erityisen ilmeistä terästeollisuudessa, jonka osalta olemme vaatineet jo vuosia tietyistä käytännöistä sekä polkumyynti- ja tukitoimien suuresta määrästä luopumista. Saavutimme Genevessä huomattavaa menestystä, mutta edessämme on suoraan sanottuna pitkä ja kova urakka, jos aiomme edes saada Yhdysvallat toteuttamaan korjaustoimenpiteet niissä kiistoissa, jotka se on hävinnyt.
Emme voi ratkaista kaikkia tapauksia diplomatian tai riitojenratkaisun keinoin. Tämän vuoksi pidämme myönteisenä tukeanne ehdotuksille, joita olemme esittäneet Dohan kierroksella ja joiden tarkoituksena on vahvistaa sääntöjä ja periaatteita, jotka ohjaavat polkumyynti- ja tasoitustullitoimenpiteiden käyttöä.
Dohan kierros on keskeytetty, mistä olen hyvin pahoillani ja surullinen, mutta teemme kovasti töitä käynnistääksemme sen uudelleen. Kaupan suojelun näkökulmasta tämä antaisi meille mahdollisuuden pyrkiä parantamaan edellä mainittuja periaatteita EU:n tätä alaa koskevan käytännön mukaisesti ja vaikeuttamaan järjestelmän väärinkäyttöä, johon jotkin maat ovat ikävä kyllä liiankin valmiita. Polkumyynnin vastaisen järjestelmän periaatteita on tiukennettava.
Kaupan suojavälineiden käytön avoimuutta on lisättävä. Hallitusten mielivaltaisia toimia on ehkäistävä. Kyseinen toiminta yksinkertaisesti horjuttaa uskoa sääntöihin. Se saattaa järjestelmän huonoon valoon ja ilmentää epäluottamusta monenväliseen kauppajärjestelmään ja sen tärkeimpään instituutioon, WTO:hon.
Olemme kanssanne samaa mieltä siitä, että riitojenratkaisumekanismi on WTO:n järjestelmän keskeinen piirre, jota on suojeltava, mutta työskentelemme erittäin tarmokkaasti parantaaksemme tätä mekanismia niin, että korjaustoimenpiteiden toteuttaminen nopeutuu."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je voudrais remercier le rapporteur, Mme Muscardini, et la commission du commerce international pour l’excellent travail qu’ils ont réalisé sur cette question cruciale.
Lors de la conclusion de tout accord commercial bilatéral avec des pays tiers, nous nous assurerons que nos partenaires commerciaux s’acquittent d’obligations particulières sur l’utilisation loyale d’instruments de défense commerciale. Il ne s’agit pas d’une mesure destinée à remplacer le renforcement et l’amélioration des règles de l’OMC. Au contraire, elle les sous-tend. C’est une manière d’obtenir une assurance, afin que nous puissions employer toutes les méthodes disponibles pour faire régner la raison et la discipline dans l’utilisation de ces instruments. Cela concernerait en particulier les pays qui abusent le plus de ces instruments.
Les bonnes pratiques sont aussi importantes que les bonnes règles. C’est la raison pour laquelle les services de la Commission consacrent beaucoup de temps et de ressources à l’octroi d’une assistance technique aux pays tiers qui sont de nouveaux utilisateurs de ces instruments de défense commerciale. Notre objectif est de faire en sorte qu’ils appliquent ces mesures d’une manière loyale et équilibrée et conformément à nos propres normes strictes.
Ces efforts semblent être payants. À la fin de 2005, nous avons assisté à un changement bienvenu de la tendance des années précédentes, dans le sens où le nombre de mesures de défense commerciale adoptées à l’égard d’exportateurs de l’UE a sensiblement chuté, pour passer de 33 cas en 2004 à 19 en 2005. L’accès au marché, y compris une application loyale et correcte des mesures de défense commerciale de l’OMC par nos partenaires commerciaux, fait partie de nos priorités les plus importantes et nous continuerons de prendre toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour garantir que nos exportations ne seront pas pénalisées outre mesure.
Bien entendu, étant donné nos ressources actuelles, il est difficile de suivre chaque cas et je voudrais certainement faire plus pour nos exportateurs, en particulier pour les petites et moyennes entreprises, qui ont souvent peu d’expérience dans ce domaine. L’UE doit rester un exemple à suivre.
Comme le rappelle le rapport, l’UE est considérée comme une utilisatrice modérée des mesures de défense commerciale. Nous méritons cette réputation et nous devons la conserver. C’est dans cet esprit que j’ai récemment lancé une procédure de réflexion sur la manière dont les instruments européens de défense commerciale, tels que l’instrument antidumping, fonctionnent dans l’économie mondiale moderne. Une vaste consultation publique aura lieu début 2007 sur la base d’un livre vert attendu pour ces prochains mois.
Cette consultation permettra à la Commission d’exploiter une grande diversité de points de vue et de vérifier s’il est possible d’améliorer encore nos règles et pratiques. Nos mesures de défense commerciales peuvent contribuer de manière significative à un commerce à la fois libre et équitable, stimulant notre compétitivité. Cela exigera une coopération solide et étroite avec toutes les parties prenantes, y compris les États membres et l’industrie et - j’ajouterais - le soutien et la participation du Parlement européen.
L’Union européenne est une grande exportatrice dans le monde entier, ce qui nous expose aux mesures de défense commerciale des pays tiers. Lorsque de telles mesures sont adoptées conformément aux règles de l’OMC, nous ne pouvons et ne devrions pas nous plaindre, et nous ne le faisons pas. Cependant, ce n’est pas toujours le cas et ces mesures peuvent aisément devenir un obstacle majeur et injustifié à nos chances légitimes d’accès au marché.
Par conséquent, nous devons surveiller de près les mesures que les pays tiers prennent à l’encontre de nos exportations et nous devons intervenir afin de réduire au minimum les conséquences négatives de ces mesures sur nos entreprises. Et nous devrions certainement nous montrer vigilants. Nous favorisons autant que possible la voie diplomatique, qui est le moyen le plus rapide et le plus efficace de résoudre ces questions lorsque nous avons affaire à des partenaires qui souhaitent les résoudre. Toutefois, quand la diplomatie échoue, nous n’hésitons pas à recourir aux panels de l’OMC, comme nous en avons le droit.
Tant l’approche diplomatique que les procédures de litige ont été remarquablement couronnées de succès. Prenez, par exemple, les affaires indiennes mentionnées dans le rapport. La diplomatie a conduit au retrait de pas moins de douze mesures. Nous espérons également une réussite significative dans les affaires relatives aux produits agricoles que vous avez citées.
Nous savons bien que les États-Unis représentent pour nous un problème récurrent dans ce contexte. Ils sont en faveur du libre-échange, mais leur utilisation de l’instrument de défense commerciale est considérée par beaucoup comme déraisonnable sur certaines questions. Nous l’avons constaté en particulier dans le secteur de l’acier, où, durant de nombreuses années, nous avons contesté certaines pratiques liées à bon nombre de leurs mesures de dumping et de subventions. Nous avons rencontré un succès considérable à Genève, mais, franchement, il est même extrêmement pénible de les faire appliquer les solutions aux litiges qu’ils ont perdus.
Nous ne pouvons pas tout résoudre par la diplomatie et les procédures de litige. C’est pourquoi nous nous réjouissons de votre soutien en faveur des propositions que nous avons présentées au cycle de Doha dans le but de renforcer les règles et les sanctions régissant l’utilisation des mesures antidumping et compensatoires.
Le cycle est suspendu, ce que je déplore et regrette profondément, mais nous luttons hardiment pour sa reprise. Pour la défense commerciale, cela nous permettrait d’améliorer les sanctions conformément à la pratique communautaire dans ce domaine, afin de rendre tout abus du système plus difficile pour les pays, dont certains, je le crains, y sont tout à fait disposés. Nous avons besoin de sanctions plus strictes dans le système antidumping.
Nous avons besoin d’une plus grande transparence dans l’utilisation des instruments de défense commerciale. Les gouvernements doivent se montrer moins arbitraires, car un tel comportement déprécie tout simplement les règles. Il jette le discrédit sur le système et il ne donne pas foi au système commercial multilatéral et à sa principale institution, l’OMC.
Nous sommes d’accord avec vous sur le fait que le mécanisme de règlement des litiges constitue un élément essentiel du système de l’OMC, qu’il est nécessaire de protéger, mais nous travaillons d’arrache-pied pour l’améliorer de manière à pouvoir trouver des solutions plus rapides."@fr8
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, vorrei ringraziare la relatrice, onorevole Muscardini, e la commissione per il commercio internazionale per l’eccellente lavoro svolto sull’importante tema in questione.
Coglieremo ogni opportunità di accordo commerciale bilaterale con i paesi terzi per assicurarci che i nostri
nazionali si assumano obblighi specifici sull’impiego corretto degli strumenti di difesa commerciale. Non rappresenta un’alternativa al rafforzamento e al miglioramento delle norme dell’OMC: al contrario, ne costituisce la base. E’ un modo per garantirci la possibilità di utilizzare tutti i metodi a nostra disposizione per far sì che l’uso di tali strumenti avvenga all’insegna della ragionevolezza e della disciplina, un aspetto che vale in maniera particolare per i paesi che abusano maggiormente di tali misure.
Le buone pratiche sono importanti tanto quanto le buone regole. Per tale ragione i servizi della Commissione dedicano molto tempo e risorse a fornire assistenza tecnica ai paesi che utilizzano per la prima volta gli strumenti di difesa commerciale. Il nostro obiettivo è far sì che li applichino in maniera equa ed equilibrata e in linea con i nostri
elevati.
Tali sforzi sembrano essere fruttuosi. Alla fine del 2005 abbiamo assistito a un cambiamento gradito rispetto alla tendenza degli anni precedenti, con un calo significativo del numero di cause in materia di difesa commerciale avviate contro gli esportatori comunitari, dalle 33 del 2004 alle 19 del 2005. L’accesso al mercato, oltre a un’attuazione equa e adeguata degli strumenti di difesa commerciale dell’OMC da parte dei nostri
commerciali, figura tra i primi posti nella nostra lista delle priorità, e continueremo a prendere tutti i provvedimenti necessari a garantire che le nostre esportazioni non vengano penalizzate ingiustamente.
Ovviamente è difficile seguire ogni singola causa con le nostre risorse attuali, e vorrei fare di più per i nostri esportatori, in particolare per le piccole e medie imprese, che spesso non hanno molta esperienza in tale settore. L’UE deve continuare a essere un esempio per gli altri.
Come citato nella relazione, siamo considerati utilizzatori “moderati” degli strumenti di difesa commerciale. Tale reputazione è meritata e deve restare tale. E’ in tale spirito che ho recentemente lanciato un processo di riflessione su come agiscono gli strumenti europei di difesa commerciale quali l’
nell’economia globale moderna. All’inizio del 2007 si svolgerà un’ampia consultazione pubblica, basata su un Libro verde atteso nei prossimi mesi.
La consultazione consentirà alla Commissione di attingere a un’ampia gamma di pareri e di capire se esiste un margine di ulteriore miglioramento delle nostre regole e pratiche. I nostri strumenti di difesa commerciale possono offrire un contributo importante per garantire un commercio contemporaneamente libero ed equo, stimolando anche la nostra competitività. Occorrerà una forte e stretta collaborazione con tutte le parti interessate, compresi i paesi membri e l’industria e, aggiungerei, il sostegno e la partecipazione del Parlamento europeo.
L’Unione europea è un esportatore rilevante a livello mondiale, fattore che ci espone alle azioni di difesa commerciale intraprese dai paesi terzi. Quando tali azioni vengono promosse nel rispetto delle norme dell’OMC, non possiamo né dobbiamo lamentarci, e non lo facciamo. Tuttavia, non sempre le cose vanno così, e le azioni in questione possono facilmente diventare un ostacolo grave e ingiustificato alle nostre opportunità legittime di accedere al mercato.
Dobbiamo pertanto tenere sotto stretto controllo le azioni intraprese dai paesi terzi contro le nostre esportazioni e intervenire per ridurre al minimo le loro ripercussioni negative sulle nostre aziende. Inoltre, dobbiamo stare in guardia. Ogniqualvolta sia possibile privilegiamo le vie diplomatiche, il modo più rapido ed efficiente di risolvere tali questioni se le nostre controparti desiderano arrivare a una soluzione. Tuttavia, quando la diplomazia fallisce, non esitiamo a rivolgerci agli organi dell’OMC, come è nostro diritto fare.
Sia l’approccio diplomatico sia quello contenzioso hanno riscontrato notevole successo. Si prendano per esempio i casi indiani citati nella relazione. La diplomazia ha comportato l’abolizione di addirittura 12 misure. Auspichiamo inoltre che i casi relativi ai prodotti agricoli da voi individuati vadano a buon fine.
E’ noto a tutti che gli Stati Uniti rappresentano un problema ricorrente per noi in tale contesto. Sono a favore del libero scambio, ma il loro impiego dello strumento della difesa commerciale è considerato da molti irragionevole per determinate questioni; il problema è emerso in maniera accentuata nel settore dell’acciaio, in cui da anni tentiamo di opporci a determinate pratiche che riguardano moltissime delle loro misure in materia di
e sovvenzioni. A Ginevra abbiamo ottenuto risultati considerevoli ma, sinceramente, è un processo lungo e faticoso anche convincerli ad attuare le risoluzioni delle controversie da cui sono usciti sconfitti.
Non possiamo risolvere tutto con le armi della diplomazia o del contenzioso, pertanto accogliamo con favore il vostro sostegno alle proposte da noi presentate nel ciclo di negoziati di Doha per rafforzare regole e discipline che regolano il ricorso a misure
e di compensazione.
Il ciclo è stato sospeso, un provvedimento che deploro profondamente e di cui mi rammarico, ma ci stiamo impegnando assiduamente per una sua ripresa. Per quanto riguarda la difesa commerciale, ciò ci consentirebbe di andare alla ricerca di discipline migliori sulla falsariga della pratica comunitaria nel settore, ostacolando l’abuso del sistema da parte degli altri paesi, alcuni dei quali non attendono altro, a mio avviso. Occorrono discipline più severe nel sistema
.
Serve una maggiore trasparenza nell’utilizzo degli strumenti di difesa commerciale. Dobbiamo ridurre l’arbitrarietà dei governi, in quanto tali comportamenti non fanno che minare la credibilità delle norme, danneggiare la reputazione del sistema e screditare il regime commerciale bilaterale e la sua istituzione principale, l’OMC.
Concordiamo con voi sul fatto che il meccanismo di risoluzione delle controversie rappresenta una caratteristica essenziale del sistema dell’OMC, che deve essere protetto, ma ci stiamo impegnando a fondo per migliorarlo al fine di mettere a punto rimedi più tempestivi."@it12
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@lt14
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@lv13
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil de rapporteur, mevrouw Muscardini, en de Commissie internationale handel bedanken voor het uitstekende werk dat zij met betrekking tot dit belangrijke vraagstuk hebben verricht.
Waar mogelijk zullen we gebruikmaken van bilaterale handelsovereenkomsten met derde landen om ervoor te zorgen dat onze partners zich aan specifieke verplichtingen houden omtrent het correcte gebruik van handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten. Dit is geen alternatief voor de versterking en verbetering van de regels van de WTO. Integendeel, het vormt een ondersteuning daarvan. Het is een wijze van zekerstelling zodat we alle beschikbare methoden kunnen hanteren om ervoor te zorgen dat deze instrumenten met verstand en beleid worden toegepast. Dit moet vooral gelden voor landen die daarvan het meest misbruik maken.
Goede praktijken zijn even belangrijk als goede regels. Daarom besteden de diensten van de Commissie veel tijd en middelen aan de verlening van technische bijstand aan derde landen die voor het eerst handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten gaan gebruiken. Wij willen graag dat zij deze instrumenten op correcte en evenwichtige wijze en in overeenstemming met onze eigen hoge normen toepassen.
Deze inspanningen lijken vruchten af te werpen. Eind 2005 constateerden we een welkome verandering in de trend van voorgaande jaren; het aantal zaken dat wegens handelsbescherming tegen exporteurs uit de Gemeenschap was aangespannen, was sterk gedaald, van 33 in 2004 tot 19 in 2005. Markttoegang, inclusief een rechtvaardige en correcte toepassing van de WTO-handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten door onze handelspartners, staat hoog op onze prioriteitenlijst en we blijven de nodige maatregelen treffen om te voorkomen dat onze export onterecht wordt benadeeld.
Natuurlijk is het met onze huidige middelen lastig om elke zaak te volgen. Ik zou graag meer voor onze exporteurs doen, met name voor middelgrote en kleine bedrijven, die vaak weinig ervaring op dit gebied hebben. De EU moet een voorbeeld blijven dat kan worden nagevolgd.
In het verslag staat dat wij worden beschouwd als een matig gebruiker van handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten. Dat is de reputatie die we hebben verworven en die we hoog moeten houden. In die geest heb ik onlangs een proces van bezinning in gang gezet over de wijze waarop de handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten van Europa zoals het antidumpinginstrument functioneren in onze moderne wereldeconomie. Begin 2007 zal er een brede openbare raadpleging plaatsvinden, op basis van een groenboek dat naar verwachting in de komende maanden zal worden gepubliceerd.
Tijdens deze raadpleging kan de Commissie uit uiteenlopende standpunten putten en vaststellen of er mogelijkheden zijn om onze regels en praktijken verder te verbeteren. Onze handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten kunnen in belangrijke mate bijdragen tot vrije en eerlijke handel, waardoor ons concurrentievermogen wordt gestimuleerd. Daartoe is een krachtige en nauwe samenwerking met alle belanghebbenden, waaronder de lidstaten en het bedrijfsleven, nodig, en, voeg ik daaraan toe, de steun en betrokkenheid van het Europees Parlement.
De Europese Unie is wereldwijd een belangrijke exporteur en daarom treffen derde landen maatregelen ter bescherming van hun eigen handel. Wanneer zulke maatregelen in overeenstemming zijn met de WTO-regels, kunnen en mogen we niet klagen. In dergelijke gevallen doen we dat ook niet. Soms is er echter wel een probleem. Deze maatregelen kunnen gemakkelijk verworden tot een ernstig en ongerechtvaardigd beletsel voor onze legitieme mogelijkheden om toegang te krijgen tot bepaalde markten.
Daarom moeten we de maatregelen van derde landen tegen onze export nauwlettend in de gaten houden, en in actie komen om de nadelige effecten van zulke maatregelen op onze bedrijven tot een minimum te beperken. En we moeten beslist waakzaam zijn. Waar mogelijk bewandelen we de diplomatieke weg, die het snelst is en de efficiëntste manier vormt om deze kwesties op te lossen wanneer onze partners daartoe de bereidwilligheid tonen. Wanneer de diplomatie echter faalt, aarzelen we niet onze toevlucht tot WTO-panels te nemen en dat is ons goed recht.
Zowel diplomatie als procesvoering hebben tot opmerkelijke successen geleid. Laten we als voorbeeld de Indiase zaken nemen die in het verslag worden genoemd. Langs diplomatieke weg zijn maar liefst twaalf maatregelen ongedaan gemaakt. Wij hopen ook op belangrijke successen wat betreft de landbouwproducten die u hebt vermeld.
Het is algemeen bekend dat de Verenigde Staten in dit kader steeds voor problemen zorgen. De VS is een voorstander van vrije handel, maar velen vinden de wijze waarop dat land zijn handel beschermt, op bepaalde punten onredelijk. Dit geldt vooral in de staalsector waar wij ons jarenlang tegen bepaalde praktijken hebben verzet die verband houden met een groot aantal van zijn dumping- en subsidiemaatregelen. We hebben in Genève een behoorlijk succes geboekt, maar eerlijk gezegd kost het ons veel moeite de VS te dwingen om de uitspraak van geschillen die zij hebben verloren, uit te voeren.
Niet alles valt door middel van diplomatie of procesvoering op te lossen. Daarom zijn we blij met uw steun voor de voorstellen die we tijdens de ontwikkelingsronde van Doha hebben ingediend. Op die manier willen we de regels en gedragslijnen voor het gebruik van antidumping- en handelsbeschermende maatregelen versterken.
De Doha-ronde is opgeschort en dat betreur ik zeer, maar we doen ons uiterste best om hem nieuw leven in te blazen. Wat betreft de bescherming van de handel zouden we dan kunnen werken aan een verbetering van de gedragslijnen volgens de EU-praktijk op dit gebied. Daardoor zou het voor landen moeilijker worden het systeem te misbruiken. Ik vrees dat sommige landen bepaald niet vies zijn van dit oneigenlijke gebruik. De gedragslijnen in het antidumpingsysteem dienen te worden aangescherpt.
Er is meer transparantie nodig in de toepassing van handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten. Regeringen dienen minder willekeurig te werk te gaan. Hun huidige gedrag getuigt gewoon van minachting voor de regels. Het systeem raakt erdoor in diskrediet en er spreekt geen vertrouwen uit in het multilaterale handelssysteem en de belangrijkste instelling ervan, de WTO.
We zijn het met u eens dat geschillenbeslechting een wezenlijk kenmerk van het WTO-systeem vormt, dat bescherming verdient, maar we doen ons best om daarin verbeteringen aan te brengen zodat er sneller oplossingen kunnen worden gevonden."@nl3
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, gostaria de agradecer à relatora, Senhora Deputada Muscardini, e à Comissão do Comércio Internacional o excelente trabalho que fizeram sobre esta importante questão.
Tencionamos aproveitar todos os acordos bilaterais de comércio com países terceiros para assegurar que os países nossos parceiros assumam obrigações específicas relativamente à utilização leal dos instrumentos de defesa comercial. Não vemos isto como uma alternativa ao reforço e aperfeiçoamento das normas da OMC. Pelo contrário, vemo-lo como uma forma de apoiar esse processo. É uma maneira de obter garantias, de modo a utilizarmos todos os meios possíveis para que estes instrumentos funcionem de uma maneira justa e disciplinada. Isto aplica-se sobretudo aos países que mais abusam do sistema.
As boas práticas são tão importantes como as boas normas. É por isso que os departamentos da Comissão dedicam tanto tempo e tantos recursos a prestar assistência técnica a países terceiros, quando estes utilizam pela primeira vez os instrumentos de defesa comercial. O nosso objectivo é que estes países os apliquem de uma maneira leal e equilibrada e em conformidade com os nossos próprios critérios de exigência.
Estes esforços parecem ser profícuos. No final de 2005, constatámos com satisfação estar a dar-se uma mudança em relação à tendência de anos anteriores, tendo-se registado uma diminuição significativa do número de acções de defesa comercial intentadas contra exportadores da Comunidade, que baixaram de 33 em 2004 para 19 em 2005. O acesso aos mercados, bem como a implementação leal e correcta dos instrumentos de defesa comercial da OMC pelos nossos parceiros comerciais é uma das nossas grandes prioridades, e continuaremos a tomar todas as medidas necessárias para garantir que as nossas exportações não sejam indevidamente penalizadas.
É, evidentemente, difícil acompanhar todos os casos com os recursos de que dispomos actualmente e gostaria sem dúvida de fazer mais pelos nossos exportadores, em particular, as pequenas e médias empresas que muitas vezes têm pouca experiência neste domínio. A UE tem de continuar a ser um exemplo que outros possam seguir.
Tal como o relatório recorda, somos vistos como uma organização que utiliza os instrumentos de defesa comercial com moderação. Trata-se de uma reputação merecida e deve continuar a sê-lo. Foi neste espírito que lancei recentemente um processo de reflexão sobre a forma como os instrumentos de defesa comercial da Europa, como, por exemplo, o instrumento anti
funcionam numa economia moderna globalizada. Irá realizar-se uma ampla consulta pública em princípios de 2007 com base no Livro Verde que se espera venha a ser apresentado nos próximos meses.
Este processo de consulta permitirá à Comissão obter um amplo leque de opiniões e determinar se haverá margem para melhorarmos ainda mais as nossas normas e práticas. Os nossos instrumentos de defesa comercial podem contribuir significativamente para assegurar o comércio livre e leal, estimulando assim a nossa competitividade. Para isso, será necessária uma cooperação forte e estreita com todas as partes interessadas, incluindo os Estados-Membros e a indústria, e - acrescentaria eu - será necessário o apoio e participação do Parlamento Europeu.
A União Europeia é um importante exportador mundial e isto significa que está exposta a acções de defesa comercial intentadas por países terceiros. Quando estas acções são instauradas em conformidade com as normas da OMC, não podemos nem devemos queixar-nos, e não o fazemos. No entanto, nem sempre é esse o caso e essas acções podem facilmente tornar-se um impedimento grave e injustificado às nossas oportunidades legítimas de acesso aos mercados.
Por conseguinte, temos de acompanhar atentamente as acções intentadas por países terceiros contra as nossas exportações e intervir no sentido de minimizar o impacte negativo de tais acções nas nossas empresas. E devemos certamente manter-nos vigilantes. Sempre que possível, privilegiamos a via diplomática, que é a maneira mais rápida e mais eficiente de resolver estas questões quando temos parceiros que as desejam resolver. Mas quando a diplomacia não surte efeito, não hesitamos em recorrer aos grupos de peritos da OMC, tal como temos o direito de fazer.
Estas duas abordagens - a diplomática e a litigiosa - têm registado êxitos notáveis. Veja-se, por exemplo, os casos relacionados com a Índia mencionados no relatório. Conseguimos que fossem suprimidas nada menos que 12 medidas pela via diplomática. Esperamos também alcançar um êxito significativo relativamente aos casos dos produtos agrícolas identificados pelo Parlamento.
É sobejamente conhecido que os Estados Unidos são um problema constante para nós neste contexto. Os Estados Unidos são a favor do comércio livre, mas muitas pessoas consideram injustificada a forma como têm utilizado o instrumento de defesa comercial relativamente a várias questões. Isto tem sido particularmente notório no caso do sector siderúrgico, em que temos vindo a contestar há anos certas práticas relacionadas com um grande número de medidas relativas ao
e às subvenções adoptadas por aquele país. Temos sido bastante bem-sucedidos em Genebra mas, sinceramente, é extremamente difícil conseguir que os Americanos implementem até as medidas de reparação em litígios cuja resolução lhes foi desfavorável.
Não podemos resolver tudo por via diplomática ou litigiosa. É por esta razão que nos congratulamos pelo vosso apoio às propostas que apresentámos nas negociações de Doha com vista a reforçar as normas e as disciplinas que regem a utilização de medidas anti
e de compensação.
O ciclo de negociações foi suspenso, o que deploro e lamento profundamente, mas estamos a lutar duramente para que seja reiniciado. No que se refere à defesa comercial, isso permitir-nos-ia procurar definir disciplinas aperfeiçoadas na linha da prática da UE neste domínio, o que tornaria mais difícil para os países abusarem do sistema, coisa que, infelizmente, alguns países estão perfeitamente dispostos a fazer. Necessitamos de disciplinas mais rigorosas para o sistema anti
.
Necessitamos de mais transparência na aplicação dos instrumentos de defesa comercial. Necessitamos de menos arbitrariedade da parte dos governos. Este tipo de comportamento apenas compromete a credibilidade das normas. Faz o sistema cair em descrédito e não abona em favor do sistema multilateral de comércio e da sua principal instituição, a OMC.
Concordamos com o Parlamento em que o mecanismo de resolução de litígios é um aspecto essencial do sistema da OMC, que deve ser protegido, mas estamos a trabalhar esforçadamente para o melhorar de modo que as decisões sejam mais rápidas."@pt17
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@sk18
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Muscardini, and the Committee on International Trade for the excellent work that they have done on this important issue.
We will take the opportunity of any bilateral trade agreement with third countries to ensure that our partner countries take on specific obligations on the fair use of trade defence instruments. This is not an alternative to strengthening and improving the rules at the WTO. On the contrary, it underpins that. It is a way of getting insurance in place, so that we can use all available methods to bring reason and discipline to the operation of these instruments. This would particularly apply for those countries that abuse them the most.
Good practices are as important as good rules. That is why the Commission’s departments devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries that become new users of trade defence instruments. Our aim is that they should apply them in a fair and balanced manner and in accordance with our own high standards.
These efforts seem to bear fruit. The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years, with a significant fall in the number of trade defence cases initiated against Community exporters, from 33 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Market access, including a fair and proper implementation of WTO trade defence instruments by our trading partners, features high on our priority list and we will continue to take any steps required to ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised.
Of course it is difficult to follow each and every case with our current resources and I would certainly like to do more for our exporters, in particular small and medium-sized companies, which often have little experience in this area. The EU must remain an example that others can follow.
As the report recalls, we are viewed as a moderate user of trade defence instruments. That reputation is deserved and that must remain so. It is in that spirit that I recently launched a reflection process on how Europe’s trade defence instruments such as the anti-dumping instrument operate in the modern global economy. A broad public consultation will take place early in 2007, based on a Green Paper expected in the coming months.
This consultation will allow the Commission to draw on a wide range of views and identify whether there is scope to improve our rules and practices further. Our trade defence instruments can make an important contribution to ensuring both free and fair trade, thereby stimulating our competitiveness. This will involve strong and close cooperation with all stakeholders, including Member States and industry, and, I would add, the support and involvement of the European Parliament.
The European Union is a major exporter worldwide and this leaves us exposed to trade defence actions by third countries. When such actions are taken in compliance with WTO rules, we cannot and should not complain, and we do not. However, that is not always the case and these actions can easily become a serious and unjustified impediment to our legitimate market access opportunities.
Therefore, we must closely monitor third-country actions against our exports and intervene to minimise the negative impact of such actions on our companies. And we should certainly be vigilant. Whenever possible we favour the diplomatic route, which is the quicker and the most efficient way to solve those issues when we have partners who wish to solve them. But when diplomacy fails, we do not hesitate to resort to WTO panels, as it is our right to do.
Both the diplomatic and the litigation approaches have met with notable successes. Take, for example, the Indian cases mentioned in the report. Diplomacy has resulted in the removal of no fewer than 12 measures. We also hope for significant success on the agricultural products cases that you have identified.
It is well known that the United States is a recurrent problem for us in this context. It is pro-free trade, but its use of the trade defence instrument is seen by many as unreasonable on certain issues. This has been particularly marked in the steel sector, where we have been arguing against certain practices for years on a large number of their dumping and subsidy measures. We have had a considerable success in Geneva but, frankly, it is a long hard slog even getting them to implement the remedies to the disputes which they have lost.
We cannot solve everything through diplomacy or litigation. This is why we welcome your support for the proposals we have tabled in the Doha Round to strengthen the rules and the disciplines governing the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
The Round is suspended, something I deeply deplore and regret, but we are fighting hard to get it restarted. For trade defence this would allow us to seek improved disciplines along the lines of the EU practice in this field, making it more difficult for countries to abuse the system, which I am afraid some are only too prepared to do. We need tightened disciplines in the anti-dumping system.
We need greater transparency in the operation of trade defence instruments. We need less arbitrariness on the part of governments. Such behaviour simply discredits the rules. It brings the system into disrepute and it does not reflect credit on the multilateral trade system and its principal institution, the WTO.
We agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism is an essential feature of the WTO system, which needs protecting, but we are working hard to improve it so that faster remedies can be achieved."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Jag vill tacka föredraganden Cristiana Muscardini och utskottet för internationell handel för ett utmärkt arbete i denna viktiga fråga.
Vi kommer att ta tillfället i akt att när det gäller bilaterala handelsavtal med tredjeländer se till att våra partnerländer gör specifika åtaganden om att använda handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument på rätt sätt. Detta är inte något alternativ till att stärka och förbättra WTO:s regler. Tvärtom bidrar det till detta. Det är ett sätt att försäkra sig så att vi kan använda alla till buds stående metoder för att se till att tillämpningen av dessa instrument präglas av förnuft och ordning. Detta gäller särskilt för de länder som missbrukar dem mest.
Goda rutiner är lika viktiga som goda regler. Det är därför som kommissionens avdelningar ägnar mycket tid och resurser åt att ge tekniskt stöd till tredjeländer när de börjar använda handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument. Syftet är att de ska använda dem på ett rättvist och balanserat sätt och enligt våra höga normer.
Denna insats verkar bära frukt. I slutet av 2005 såg vi en välkommen förändring jämfört med tidigare år. Antalet handelsskyddsprocesser som inleddes mot gemenskapsexportörer minskade avsevärt från 33 under 2004 till 19 under 2005. Tillträdet till marknaden, som bland annat innebär att våra handelspartner på ett rättvist och korrekt sätt genomför WTO:s handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument, har hög prioritet, och vi kommer även i fortsättningen att vidta alla åtgärder som krävs för att se till att vår export inte straffas i onödan.
Det är naturligtvis svårt att följa varje enskilt fall med våra nuvarande resurser, och jag vill verkligen göra mer för våra exportörer, särskilt små och medelstora företag som ofta har liten erfarenhet på området. EU måste fortsätta att föregå med gott exempel.
Genom betänkandet blir vi påminda om att vi ses som en återhållsam användare av handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument. Vi förtjänar det ryktet och måste fortsätta att göra det. Det var i den andan som jag nyligen inledde en diskussionsprocess om hur EU:s handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument, såsom antidumpningsinstrumentet, används i dagens globala ekonomi. Ett brett offentligt samråd, baserat på en grönbok som förväntas läggas fram de närmaste månaderna, kommer att äga rum i början av 2007.
Detta samråd kommer att innebära en möjlighet för kommissionen att stödja sig på många olika åsikter och fastställa om det finns utrymme för ytterligare förbättringar av våra regler och metoder. Våra handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument kan utgöra ett viktigt bidrag till att slå vakt om en både fri och rättvis handel och därmed stimulera vår konkurrenskraft. Detta kommer att innebära ett starkt och nära samarbete med alla berörda parter, däribland medlemsstaterna och industrin, samt, vill jag tillägga, Europaparlamentets stöd och medverkan.
Europeiska unionen är en stor global exportör och drabbas därför av de handelspolitiska skyddsåtgärder som tredjeländer vidtar. När sådana åtgärder vidtas enligt Världshandelsorganisationens (WTO) regler kan och bör vi inte klaga, och det gör vi inte. Detta är dock inte alltid fallet, och dessa åtgärder kan lätt bli ett allvarligt och obefogat hinder för våra legitima möjligheter att få tillträde till marknaden.
Vi måste därför noggrant övervaka tredjelands åtgärder mot vår export och ingripa för att minimera de negativa konsekvenser sådana åtgärder har för våra företag. Vi måste verkligen vara vaksamma. När det är möjligt föredrar vi att gå den diplomatiska vägen. Det är nämligen det snabbaste och effektivaste sättet att lösa dessa frågor på, om våra partner vill lösa dem. När diplomatin inte fungerar tvekar vi dock inte att vända oss till WTO-paneler eftersom vi har rätt till det.
Både det diplomatiska förfarandet och rättstvistförfarandet har varit påfallande framgångsrika. Ta till exempel de indiska fall som nämns i betänkandet. Diplomatin har lett till att inte mindre än tolv åtgärder har tagits bort. Vi hoppas även på stor framgång i de fall som ni har påvisat när det gäller jordbruksprodukter.
Det är allmänt känt att Förenta staterna är ett återkommande problem för oss i det här sammanhanget. De förespråkar frihandel men använder i en del fall handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument på ett sätt som många anser vara oacceptabelt. Detta har blivit särskilt tydligt inom stålsektorn, där vi i åratal har kritiserat vissa metoder när det gäller många av deras dumpnings- och subventionsåtgärder. Vi har varit mycket framgångsrika i Genève, men ärligt talat är det ett mycket krävande arbete bara att få dem att genomföra lösningarna på de tvister de har förlorat.
Vi kan inte lösa allt genom diplomati eller rättstvister. Det är därför vi välkomnar ert stöd för de förslag som vi har lagt fram i Doharundan om att stärka reglerna och bestämmelserna för användningen av antidumpningsåtgärder och kompensatoriska åtgärder.
Rundan har skjutits upp, vilket jag djupt beklagar, men vi kämpar hårt för att den ska återupptas. När det gäller handelsskyddet skulle detta ge oss möjlighet att försöka förbättra bestämmelserna i enlighet med EU:s praxis på området och därmed göra det svårare för länder att missbruka systemet, något som jag befarar att en del också är beredda att göra. Vi behöver skärpta bestämmelser inom antidumpningssystemet.
Vi behöver större insyn i tillämpningen av handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument. Regeringarna måste tillämpa ett mindre godtyckligt förfarande. Ett sådant beteende skapar helt enkelt misstro för reglerna. Det vanhedrar systemet och misskrediterar det multilaterala handelssystemet och dess viktigaste organ, WTO.
Vi håller med er om att tvistlösningsmekanismen är ett viktigt inslag i WTO-systemet, som behöver skyddas. Vi arbetar dock hårt med att förbättra det i syfte att nå snabbare lösningar."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
"Peter Mandelson,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"dumping"17,12
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples