WRITTEN QUESTION E-2299/01

by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Anti-dumping of CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) from China

According to the Commission's newly proposed Directive on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, a 30-40 % energy saving in electricity consumption for lighting (which consumes 14 % of total energy in the tertiary sector) could be achieved through the use of improved lighting technology. Has the Commission calculated the consequences of the reduced incentive for a shift to improved lighting due to the price effects of the antidumping duty on Chinese CFLs?

In relation to the Community's commitments to greenhouse gas reductions, what initiatives does the Commission intend to take to compensate for the expected reduced dissemination of one of the cheapest and most efficient means of CO2-reduction, namely CFLs, as a consequence of the likely price effects of the antidumping duty on Chinese CFLs, cf. a recent SAVE study on dissemination of CFLs? ('SAVE project: 4.1031/Z97-030. Dissemination in Order to Eliminate Barriers for Use of Energy Saving Lamps in the Domestic Sector, Energy Piano, December 2000')

Is the Commission satisfied with the level of competition between European producers of CFLs? Given the concentrated structure of the industry, is the Commission considering any measures to improve competition?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2001)

By Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China(1). The duties imposed range from 0 % to 66,1 % depending on the manufacturer concerned.

The anti-dumping investigation concluded that the measures are very unlikely to lead to a shortage of supply, and that consumers will continue to have access to cost advantageous energy saving lamps, especially given the fact that there are some Chinese exporting producers with relatively low duties and that no duty was imposed on imports of the largest known Chinese exporting producer, in terms of export volume. Given this, the Commission sees no need to propose compensatory measures.

As to the level of competition, it should be noted that the purpose of the measure imposing duties is to restore fair conditions of competition. In any case, a low number of Community producers does not necessarily mean that there is a low level of competition on the Community market. Given the various levels of the duties for Chinese exporting producers, it is likely that a significant number of them will continue to compete both with each other and with the Community producers on the Community market. In addition, producers of energy saving lamps from other third countries not subject to anti-dumping duties, particularly Poland and Hungary, are also likely to remain on the market. Therefore, the Commission sees no need to consider measures to improve competition.

The Commission would also like to recall the fact that the anti-dumping investigation concluded that the Community industry had suffered from injurious dumping caused by imports of compact florescent lamps originating in China. Moreover, Community producers cannot be expected to suffer the consequences of proven unfair trade practices at the expense of the Community energy and environment policies.

(1) OJ L 195, 19.7.2001.