WRITTEN QUESTION E-3978/00

by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: The Everything but weapons initiative in favour of LDCs

We have noted the Commission proposal for all products, with the exception of weapons, from 48 least-developed countries (LDCs) to be granted duty-free access to the European market. For some sensitive products (sugar, rice and bananas) however, the Commission lays down a transition period of three years.

We welcome the humanitarian and political concern underlying that initiative. It puts into effect a previous European Union commitment to the World Trade Organisation that was reaffirmed at the end of 1999 in Seattle.

The Commission wishes to implement the proposal by way of a review of Council Regulation 2820/98(1) applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences. The procedure followed is based on Article 133 of the Treaty. That procedure includes no provision for consulting the European Parliament.

In view of the potential impact, both socio-economic and on agricultural production, of the proposed measure on the abovementioned sensitive products, we wonder if the Commission is not perhaps being over-ambitious in its planning. Might it not be that the need to monitor the implementation of regulatory provisions is being underestimated? Would it not therefore be appropriate for the opinions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and the European Parliament to be sought?

We have also noted the Commission proposal for renewing the common organisation of the market in sugar. The procedure used there lays down compulsory consultation of the European Parliament. Should the Commission initiative in favour of LDCs not also be subject to a procedure commensurate with that used for the Commission proposal for a new common organisation of the market in sugar?

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3863/00 and E-3978/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The Honourable Members are referring to the recent Commission proposal(1) for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries(2).

With regard to the possibility of least-developed countries (LDCs) utilising non-LDC products under this initiative, one should distinguish between fraudulent and non fraudulent ways of doing so.

In order to address the risk of fraud, the Commission has proposed to reinforce the existing anti-fraud clause. The reinforced clause provides a tool for tackling the risk of fraud by specifying that massive increases in Community imports of LDC products, beyond the level reflecting prevailing economic conditions such as normal production and export capacities in LDCs will be regarded as evidence of fraud.

In other, non fraudulent cases, the current rules of origin, and in particular the minimum value-added conditions attached to regional cumulation of origin allow trade of LDCs with other developing countries within the region but also provide that trade benefits will correspond to significant economic activity in the LDCs.

Similarly, the possibility that LDCs export their domestic production to the Community, while covering their domestic consumption needs by imports from non LDCs (triangular trade), would not be fraud. However, this import/export swap is constrained, notably by poor LDCs infrastructures.

As far as procedural aspects are concerned, the Commission proposal for amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 is based on Article 133 (ex Article 113) of the EC Treaty which despite the Commission's efforts in the Inter-Governmental Conference does not foresee consultation of the Parliament. However, the Commission has been sensitive to the political importance of the matter for the Parliament and has therefore briefed the Parliament as early as possible on the proposal. Wide-ranging discussions have already taken place. In the sugar sector, the proposal has also been presented to the social partners and discussed with numerous representatives of the sector. As you certainly know, efforts are intensifying within the Council to strike a legitimate balance between the different interests involved.

(1) COM(2000) 561 final.

(2) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.