14.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 168/1

—

having regard to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) adopted in 1994 as part of the Uruguay Round of WTO negotiations (1),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (2) (Trade Barriers Regulation, TBR),

—

having regard to its earlier resolutions, in particular the resolution of 13 October 2005 on prospects for trade relations between the EU and China (3), the resolution of 1 June 2006 on EU-US transatlantic economic relations (4), the resolution of 28 September 2006 on the EU’s economic and trade relations with India (5), the resolution of 12 October 2006 on economic and trade relations between the EU and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an Interregional Association Agreement (6), the resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (7), the resolution of 19 June 2007 on EU economic and trade relations with Russia (8), the resolution of 19 February 2008 on the EU’s Strategy to deliver market access for European companies (9), the resolution of 24 April 2008 on ‘Towards a reform of the World Trade Organisation’ (10), the resolution of 5 February 2009 on Trade and economic relations with China (11), the resolution of 26 March 2009 on an EU-India Free Trade Agreement (12), the resolution of 21 October 2010 on the European Union’s trade relations with Latin America (13), the resolution of 17 February 2011 on the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Korea (14), the resolution of 6 April 2011 on European international investment policy (15), its Position of 10 May 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries (16), the resolution of 11 May 2011 on the state of play in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement negotiations (17), the resolution of 11 May 2011 on EU-Japan Trade relations (18), the resolution of 8 June 2011 on EU-Canada trade relations (19), the resolution of 13 September 2011 on an effective raw materials strategy for Europe (20), the resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy (21) and the resolution of 25 October 2011 on modernisation of public procurement (22),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World – A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 Strategy’ (COM(2010)0612),

—

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the European Council entitled ‘Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2011 – Engaging our strategic economic partners on improved market access: Priorities for action on breaking down barriers to trade’ (COM(2011)0114),

—

having regard to the report by Copenhagen Economics entitled ‘Assessment of barriers to trade and investment between the EU and Japan’, published on 30 November 2009,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0365/2011),

A.

whereas the rule-based multilateral trading system, which was established under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is the most suitable framework for regulating and promoting open and fair trade and guaranteeing the development of fair and equitable global trade rules; whereas efforts are still needed to reform the WTO with a view to making it more democratic and efficient and clarifying its relations with other key international organisations;

B.

whereas the EU should continue to give priority to achieving a balanced outcome of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) which would support the integration of developing countries, particularly the least developed countries (LDCs), into the international trading system and contribute to establishing and enforcing fairer and more equitable multilateral trade rules among all its members;

C.

whereas the WTO International Trade Statistics for the period 2000-2009 show a substantial increase in trade exchanges for those regions which have opened up their markets by lifting or significantly reducing barriers to trade (23); but whereas at the same time a joint ILO-WTO report has shown that during the financial crisis some countries – in both industrialised and developing countries – that were more open to trade experienced more external trade shocks and that in those countries the shocks resulted in significant job losses (24);

D.

whereas the Commission’s Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2011 lists examples where the EU’s market access to different countries in the world, including industrialised and major emerging economies and WTO members, is being constrained more by various non-tariff barriers (NTBs) than by trade tariffs, which are being waived substantially as globalisation progresses;

E.

whereas public procurement procedures in the EU’s strategic partner countries tend to be closed to foreign participants and are still relatively unaffected by international commitments, while the EU is much more open than other countries in this regard;

F.

whereas EU producers have experienced long-lasting difficulties in registering and defending their geographical indications (GIs) in the US; whereas the US treats a number of European wine names (e.g. ‘Champagne’) as ‘semi-generics’, notwithstanding the possible damage to the reputation and market share of the EU GI in question;

G.

whereas European manufacturers penetrate the Japanese market with difficulty, particularly in the automotive, aviation and aeronautics sectors, and especially in relation to public procurement; whereas in Japan’s car market these difficulties are chiefly due to the slow pace of adoption by Japan of the relevant international standards (Japan has disappointingly adopted only 40 of the 127 UN-ECE Regulations under the 1958 Agreement); acknowledges, however, that these include 30 of the 47 that concern Passenger Cars (M1), the sector of Japan's market which is most relevant to European car manufacturers, and that the slow pace of adoption of international standards by Japan restricts the benefits of the mutual recognition provisions of the 1958 UN-ECE Agreement; whereas the EU-Japan Regulatory Reform Dialogue (RRD), launched in 1994, has not yet led to any significant progress on harmonisation or mutual recognition of regulations, which demonstrates, especially in light of the current economic climate, the importance of addressing and eliminating unnecessary NTBs, possibly by opening up negotiations on an EU-Japan EIA/FTA, provided that the scoping exercise shows that the required conditions, such as, but not limited to those mentioned above, including the 17 M1 sector issues, are met, and notes that Japan’s test cycle to measure the emissions and fuel efficiency of light vehicles makes European ones less likely to qualify for the Japanese environmental performance-based tax incentives;

H.

whereas Russia’s increase in export duties on copper from 0 % to 10 % and on nickel from 5 % to 10 % since December 2010, together with the high export duties on timber, have imposed export restrictions on vital raw materials for European industries, primarily the steel sector (25) and the forestry industry;

I.

whereas the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) ought to be an effective tool for ensuring transparency and combating speculation on commodity markets;

J.

whereas NTBs in China have been steadily growing in number in recent years and could restrict companies’ development, particularly that of SMEs established on Chinese territory;

K.

whereas for more than a year the registration of European cosmetic products in China was almost impossible, particularly in the case of those containing new ingredients, because China lacked both a proper legal definition of the latter and clear guidelines on the procedure itself (26);

L.

whereas concerns have arisen since the end of 2010 about the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) concerning a ‘Telecom Equipment Manufacturing Policy’ that would grant preferential market access to domestically manufactured products (DMP)/telecom equipment, mainly by means of subsidies and specific fiscal and government-procurement-related measures (27);

M.

whereas Brazil and Argentina regularly adopt tariff and non-tariff measures that affect European companies unfavourably although they are both involved, as members of Mercosur, in negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU; whereas, moreover, deficiencies in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection and enforcement and the considerable registration backlog in patent and trademark applications affecting various goods, including additional discriminatory requirements for pharmaceuticals, are reported by EU companies at entry to the Brazilian market; whereas the delay in ratification by Brazil of the Madrid Protocol and its non-accession to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Internet Treaties are both affecting the effective protection of IPR in the country; and whereas sanctions are not a sufficient deterrent to combat IP infringements;

N.

whereas EU exporters face many types of restriction in other markets, for example Vietnam’s limited points of entry and requirement for additional documentation for imports of wines and spirits, cosmetics and mobile phones (28), and Ukraine’s burdensome customs valuation, arbitrary product reclassification and increase in the applicable VAT payment with respect to agri-food, wines and spirits, clothing and machinery;

O.

whereas the area of clean and renewable energy technology is increasingly the subject of NTBs such as local content requirements, public procurement discriminations, favouritism toward national state-owned enterprises, restriction of the movement of non-national personnel, local sourcing and ownership requirements etc. in countries such as China, India, Ukraine, Brazil and Nigeria;

P.

whereas the EU should actively defend its industries, whenever necessary, against violations of agreed rules, WTO standards and principles by its trading partners, using all available means, including multilateral and bilateral dispute settlement mechanisms and WTO-compatible trade defence instruments;

Q.

whereas under EU law European and foreign companies can tender for European public contracts without discrimination, and whereas the Union’s partners should do their utmost to grant European companies reciprocal authorisation to tender for public contracts in third countries on fair and equitable terms;

1.

Takes the view that removing or reducing unjustified NTBs and other regulatory obstacles applied by the EU's key strategic partner countries by means of regulatory dialogue should be one of the key regulatory priorities of the new EU trade policy under the Europe 2020 Strategy; regards as unjustified all barriers resulting from the incoherent implementation of bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral trade rules; stresses, however, that regulatory dialogue should respect the right of all states to enhance human rights, environmental rules, social rules and public health;

2.

Calls on the Commission to systematically address the great variety, technical complexity and political sensitivity of NTBs as part of a holistic strategy, including enhanced regulatory dialogue, with respect to all the EU’s trading partners, particularly those of strategic importance; considers, in particular, the committees reviewing the implementation of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs), the relevant committees of the WTO and the standard-setting agencies of the UN as the appropriate fora for discussing these regulatory issues;

3.

Calls on the Commission to draw a clear distinction between those NTBs which give rise to unfair distortions of competition and those which reflect legitimate public-policy aims, notably in relation to public health and the protection of the environment; emphasises, for example, that the European laws on GMOs and the health- and plant-health-related rules affecting agriculture cannot be regarded as unfair NTBs but should, on the contrary, be defended in the international trade arena;

4.

Emphasises that the structured regulatory dialogues envisioned in bilateral FTAs must fully respect the democratic process in the adoption of standards, both in the EU and in its trading partners;

5.

Insists that the tackling of NTBs is an inter-service task involving different Commission Directorates-General and should be regarded as a priority on the Commission's regulatory outreach agenda, in particular through the harmonisation of technical rules on the basis of international standards;

6.

Requests the Commission to systematically use appropriate channels of its cooperation with like-minded partners to address NTBs and regulatory obstacles in third countries with a view to developing joint strategies for the removal of these barriers;

7.

Takes the view that insistence on reciprocity of market access for industrialised and emerging countries should be an integral part of EU trade strategy, on a par with the removal or lowering of NTBs;

8.

Calls on the Commission to address these widespread and persistent issues in all plurilateral and bilateral trade agreements, especially FTAs, and to ensure that NTBs are given at least as much attention as is currently afforded tariff elimination in all appropriate regulatory fora, particularly in its trade negotiations with industrialised and emerging economies; emphasises that, in the field of cooperation with developing countries, especially LDCs and Small Island Developing States (SIDs), priority must be accorded to aid for trade and to technical and financial assistance, in order to help such countries improve their regulatory environment while taking account of their specific needs in terms of developing their internal markets and protecting their embryonic industries and their agricultural structures, which in many cases are vulnerable;

9.

Considers that the European Parliament should give more attention in future to the manner in which NTBs, especially unjustified NTBs, have been addressed when trade agreements to ensure access for European exporters and investors, in particular SMEs, to third country markets are assessed, while at the same time respecting the need for special, differentiated treatment for developing countries as provided for by WTO disciplines;

10.

Encourages the Commission to continue its efforts to maintain an up-to-date inventory of key barriers faced by EU exporters and investors in important third-country markets, in particular FTA partners, including the number and nature of concerns raised by Member States and companies, as a tool for assessing the situation in the third countries;

11.

Reminds the Commission that European IPR policy towards developing countries should remain within the TRIPS agreement obligations and must fully respect the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and Public Health, especially in the field of generic medicines and public health, so as to leave the developing countries policy space to address public interest concerns;

12.

Is of the opinion that, although no direct link can be made at present between specific NTBs and other regulatory hindrances faced by EU companies when trying to access foreign markets, on the one hand, and current job losses in the EU Member States on the other, the Commission should investigate, in consultation with other relevant international organisations, whether there is a correlation between specific NTBs in the EU and in third countries and current job creation or losses in the EU;

13.

Points out that the Commission should explore the possibility of developing and establishing an early warning mechanism to detect NTBs and strengthen its existing analytical tools for qualitative evaluation thereof and a clearer definition of unjustified NTBs; proposes that this mechanism should work via the EU delegations based in third countries, in cooperation with the bodies already set up by Member States;

14.

Urges the Commission to improve international regulatory cooperation, including in multilateral fora, and convergence of regulatory requirements on the basis of international standards and, where possible, engage in regulatory dialogue to address existing or potential future barriers to trade with a view to limiting disputes and associated trade costs;

15.

Urges the Commission to promote, among the parties to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), the public procurement disciplines based on international standards as developed in the GPA and to use or expand existing regulatory dialogues in order to enhance cooperation on the regulatory framework and the restructuring and, where appropriate, removal of existing direct and indirect discriminatory practices in the relations of the EU with its industrialised partner countries;

16.

Believes that one of the keys to lowering NTBs to trade and investment is reform of the GPA in the WTO, with due regard to the multifunctional nature of procurement policies; calls on the major emerging economies to participate in this process and to sign and ratify the future agreement without delay;

17.

Calls on the Commission to maintain a positive and strong stance during the negotiations on China's signing of the GPA in order to secure an equal reciprocal opening-up of Chinese procurement procedures as well as equal treatment and predictable conditions for European businesses;

18.

Recommends looking into regulatory means of ensuring that public procurement contracts for projects funded with EU subsidies may not be awarded to state-owned undertakings from third countries which have signed neither the GPA nor bilateral mutual market-opening agreements, or alternatively that in such cases the EU may demand repayment of the subsidies;

19.

Recalls the importance of foreign direct investments to the European economy and the need to create a stable and attractive environment for European investors abroad and to promote an open investment environment throughout Europe; suggests, however, that in the interests of both sides it would be desirable to consider at European level evaluating the impact of these investments on the internal market so as to forestall any potential adverse effects on European innovation and know-how in certain strategic sectors;

20.

Encourages EU businesses and exporters to make use of the existing channels, including the TBR complaint or the complaints register in the Market Access Database, to report material injuries resulting from all kinds of trade barriers to the Commission, which should assess them and use all necessary measures to tackle unjustified NTBs;

21.

Considers that, with regard to raw materials, the Commission should pursue a sustainable, comprehensive and cross-policy strategy, while recognising that export restrictions and export taxes may be seen as important for the support of development objectives, the protection of the environment or the sustainable exploitation of natural resources in LDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with the exclusion of BRIC countries; notes that the majority of WTO members using export taxes are developing countries and LDCs; calls on the EU to refrain from attempting to ban the use of export taxes for LDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with the exclusion of BRIC countries, at the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as it would limit their policy space to use this tool for value-addition, diversification, infant industry protection, food security, revenue and environmental considerations as long as they have not reached advanced developing status;

22.

Concludes that, in order to fully appreciate the benefits of trade liberalisation in those countries that open their markets and lift tariffs and NTBs, the trade partners should mutually agree on transitional phasing-in periods with respect to granting access to markets in certain sensitive sectors and investment therein or, in exceptional cases, excluding them completely;

23.

In accordance with the EU-US Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Services (signed with the US under TEC), urges the Commission to fully review and address the use of discriminatory or disproportionate regulations, liabilities and other legislative methods against ICT networks and services to restrict open flow of information and market access for services and further the digital divide;

24.

Considers that due priority should be given to trade and investment barriers that affect European service sectors, including ICT and telecommunication, professional and business services, financial services, construction, retail and distribution; these non-tariff measures, including domestic regulations, ownership restrictions and various crisis measures (including discriminatory provisions in public procurement), are of particular importance given the higher value-added of services trade and the EU's position as the largest exporter of services;

25.

Takes the view that a mediation mechanism should be created in the WTO to facilitate the removal of NTBs in a constructive, effective, rapid and non-confrontational manner, inspired by the SOLVIT system, in accordance with similar earlier suggestions from both the EU and India;

26.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.