B4-0430, 0431, 0433 and 0435/99

Resolution on the Transatlantic Economic Partnership and EU/US trade disputes, especially hormones, bananas and hushkits

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the New Transatlantic Declaration Agenda (NTA) adopted in Madrid on 3 December 1995, and to the accompanying Joint EU-US Action Plan,

- having regard to the results of the EU/US Summits of 16 December 1996, 28 May and 5 December 1997, 18 May and 18 December 1998 and to the preceding Senior Level Group reports,

- having regard to the WTO panel reports of 18 August 1997 on EC measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) ((WT/DS26/R/USA on the complaint by the US and WT/DS48/R/CAN on the complaint by Canada.)), as well as the findings of the WTO Appellate Body on both complaints ((WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body on 13.2.1998.)),

- having regard to the WTO panel report of 12 April 1999 on the EU regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas,

- having regard to the 'Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes¨ annexed to the final act embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations,

- having regard to the Commission proposal for a Regulation on modified subsonic civil aircraft (COM(98)0098),

- having regard to its resolutions of 18 November 1998 on the 'Transatlantic Economic Partnership¨ between the European Union and the United States ((OJ C 379, 7.12.1998, p. 94.)) and 11 February 1999 on the banana regime dispute with the US ((Minutes of that sitting, Part II, Item 19.)),

On the Transatlantic Economic Partnership

1. Deeply regrets that the disputes between the United States and the European Union have not been resolved in the framework of the privileged relationship between them, and that these disputes had to be taken to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body;

2. Points out that trade disputes only involve an unsubstantial part (around 2%) of transatlantic economic relations and should not overshadow the positive aspects of this relationship;

3. Stresses the importance of rapid progress in implementing the new approaches defined in the TEP statement and Action Plan; recalls that the EU and US, on the basis of this last document, are committed 'to reinforce efforts to resolve bilateral trade issues and disputes¨ as part of the confidence-building process foreseen in the New Transatlantic Agenda of 1995';

4. Recalls its abovementioned resolution of 18 November 1998, which considered, in view of the new WTO negotiations, that common EU/US approaches should be sought, involving in particular specific dialogue on dispute settlement, general standstill, implementation of WTO agreements, services, agriculture, trade facilitation, industrial tariffs, technical barriers to trade, intellectual property, investment, competition, government procurement, trade and environment, accession to the WTO, developing countries, electronic commerce and core labour standards, without prejudicing the outcome of forthcoming negotiations with all WTO members;

5. Considers that, in particular in the light of the recent disputes, clarification of DSU procedures, both in the EU/US bilateral context and in the framework of the new WTO Round, constitutes an essential priority;

6. Draws attention to the fact that on both sides of the Atlantic certain sensitive and traditional consumer interests and preferences, including cultural and social elements, play a significant role and should be taken into consideration by new multilateral trade regulations; furthermore calls on the Commission to introduce core labour standards and ecological minimum standards into the WTO negotiations;

7. Asks the Commission to draw up a review of the results of the TEP Action Plan, especially with regard to the proposed "early warning system¨ in the field of food safety;

8. Calls on the Commission to prepare a working conference on food and health issues with the participation of the political bodies and the scientific community on both sides of the Atlantic;

9. Calls on the Commission to speed up the studies under way into the possibility of establishing an indemnity system, by means of a compensation fund, for EU businesses affected by trade disputes in other sectors of the economy which are unrelated to their activities, and to propose that the Council and Parliament take specific steps to that end;

10. Insists on the need to enhance considerably interparliamentary cooperation between Parliament and the US Congress, building on the experience of the present EP/US interparliamentary delegation and the Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue, which includes increased contacts between the relevant parliamentary committees;

11. Stresses that retroactive application of the US sanctions is illegal, and supports the actions of the Commission which is continuing proceedings within the WTO against the US for the latter´s unilateral decisions to impose sanctions and against Section 301 of the US trade law;

12. Stresses therefore that Parliament will need to be involved, through appropriate procedures, in the preparation of the June 1999 EU/US Summit and in particular receive adequate information on the preparatory meeting of the Senior Level Group;

With regard to the hormones dispute

13. Notes that the Commission has set out, in its Communication on WTO decisions regarding the EC hormones ban, the possible options for interim measures to be taken for the period between 13 May 1999 and the moment when a final decision can be taken on the basis of the risk assessment studies;

14. Stresses the key principles which should underpin any acceptable solution to the problem:

- highest possible level of food security for European consumers,

- fulfilment by the EU of its international obligations under the WTO;

15. Calls for complete transparency and disclosure of scientific deliberation in the framework of the WTO including the transmission of all information available to the Commission and the Federal Drug Administration; insists, given the unsatisfactory results of the tests on imported meat, on strict adherence to European legislation and a countercheck of the American control system;

16. Calls on the Commission to maintain the ban on hormone-treated meat and strongly opposes the introduction of a labelling scheme to solve the present problem as it does not ensure adequate consumer information, in particular with regard to processed food;

17. Stresses that the precautionary principle is a central element of policies in the food and health sector and that the EU has the right to establish its health protection at the highest possible level;

18. Considers that the Commission should enter discussions with the plaintiffs to explore the feasibility of compensation under Article 22 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding; is of the opinion that such compensation should in any case be reexamined in the light of the final results of the risk assessment studies now being conducted and should not prejudice the final decision to be taken;

19. Considers that the implementation of the MRAs should take due account of those parties who, on the basis of sound scientific evidence, have real concern about the implications for public health and consumer protection;

With regard to the banana regime dispute

20. Notes that, on 19 April 1999, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body authorised US sanctions ('withdrawal of concessions¨) in the EU banana regime case; maintains however that the US does not have the right to apply these sanctions retroactively, and that the 'withholding of liquidation¨ implemented by the US on 3 March 1999 is a unilateral act which the EU has legitimately challenged in the WTO;

21. Asks the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, an evaluation of options for revising the EU banana regime, in order to take into account the WTO findings; such an evaluation should examine in particular the options mentioned in the panel report and their compatibility with the Common Agricultural Policy, taking into account all options available within the WTO;

22. Stresses that the EU must continue to fulfil its commitments to its ACP partners under the Lomé Convention as well as to its outermost regions; points out that the panel report has recognised that the EU is entitled to afford preferential treatment to its ACP partners;

23. Insists on the fact that the current ACP-EU banana regime has to be understood as part of, and an instrument for, EU development policies;

24. Considers that the EU will have to be careful, when choosing a new type of banana import regime, to ensure that the economies of its remote banana producing regions and the ACP states, which are heavily dependent on exporting to the Community market, are not affected and that the interests of those banana producers are safeguarded as far as possible;

With regard to hushkits (aircraft noise)

25. Stresses the importance of the EU's efforts to improve the environmental performance of aircraft in terms of noise reduction, fuel efficiency and pollution, in particular proposal for a Regulation COM(98)0098, which was approved by Parliament on 10 February 1999 ((Minutes of that sitting, Part II, Item 2.)); considers that the densely populated regions of the EU pose specific problems in this respect;

26. Points to the fact that the EU measure is not discriminatory and that current ICAO noise certification standards, which have not been updated since 1977, need urgently to be revised;

27. Is deeply dissatisfied with the way in which the decision to delay the entry into force of the hushkits directive was taken by the Council without consulting Parliament, and points out that this should in no way form a precedent for future legislative procedure;

28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments of the Member States and the Congress and Administration of the United States of America.