Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1999 in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries'
Date: 1996-04-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Uruguay Round, agricultural product, developing countries, generalised preferences, market access













EUR-Lex - 51996AC0611 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC0611

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1999 in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries'  


Official Journal C 204 , 15/07/1996 P. 0116 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council  Regulation (EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences from 1  July 1996  to 30  June 1999 in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing  countries`(96/C 204/25)On 12  April 1996, the Council decided to consult the Economic and  Social Committee, under Article  198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the  above-mentioned proposal. The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Strauss as Rapporteur-General for its  Opinion. At its 335th Plenary Session (meeting of 25  April), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the  following Opinion by a majority with 55 votes for, five votes against and 26 abstentions. 1. Preliminary remark1.1. The Commission proposes to extend to the agricultural sector  the principles of the generalized scheme of tariff preferences (GSP) which have applied to  industrial products since 1  January 1995. At that time the implications of the outcome of the  Uruguay Round for the agricultural sector still had to be studied. 1.2. For the agricultural sector the Commission proposal seeks the same four main objectives as for  the industrial scheme: - simplification, with preferential duties being modulated by a mechanism involving four tiers of  tariff reductions; - the re-weighting of the scheme in favour of the countries most in need of it, by means of a  system of graduation by major production sector; - the neutrality of the new scheme's impact compared with the previous one; and- the encouragement  of beneficiary countries to develop progressive social and environmental policies by means of  additional incentives going beyond neutrality. A fifth objective, specific to the agricultural sector, is also sought, namely: - extending the range of products covered by the new scheme. 2. General comments2.1. The ESC welcomes the intention to undertake a reform of the GSP, which  will include the agricultural sector. 2.2. The ESC agrees with the Commission that account should be taken of the changing conditions of  international trade in agricultural products, particularly since the conclusion of the Uruguay  Round, and of the beneficiary countries' repeated requests over the years that the coverage of the  agricultural scheme be extended. 2.3. The ESC stresses the need for differential treatment of agricultural products depending on  their sensitivity. The ESC supports application of the same levels of tariff reduction as in the  industrial sector, divided into four sensitivity categories (15 % reduction for very sensitive  products, 30 % for sensitive products, 65 % for semi-sensitive products and 100 % for non-sensitive  products). The ESC thinks attention should be paid to certain special cases, so that the interests  of EU producers can also be taken into account. 2.4. The ESC supports the introduction of a graduation and solidarity mechanism (Article  4).  Developing countries which have reached a higher standard in terms of their GNP and export capacity  should gradually be taken out of the preference scheme, so that they can be treated as industrial  countries. They should therefore not retain any right to preferences if they have made particular  progress, compared with other developing countries, as regards their GSP-covered agricultural  products. The ESC basically feels that the procedure provided for in Article  5 should be applied  here. 2.5. The ESC considers that there is no need to wait for serious difficulties to actually occur  before introducing protective measures; the mere threat of such a difficulty is sufficient.  However, objective criteria should be applied when assessing whether there is a serious difficulty.  The ESC thinks it important that, in addition to the rules on the introduction of protective  measures, the proposed Regulation should contain other rules on the duration and periodic review of  such measures. 2.6. The ESC considers that the social, environmental and withdrawal clauses (Article  7) are  necessary. It agrees that special arrangements should be introduced too, as an additional offer  regarding the agricultural products concerned, for particularly good conduct in the areas of worker  and environmental protection. These arrangements should not apply to advanced developing countries,  but should serve as an additional incentive to those developing countries which can no longer  obtain full customs exemption. 2.7. The ESC supports the provision for temporary withdrawal of preferences at any time, in whole  or in part, when serious violations of international agreements occur (e.g. international  conventions against forced labour, inadequate co-operation on the export or transit of drugs or the  combatting of money laundering), or when there is discrimination against the Community and failure  to comply with obligations under the Uruguay Round to meet agreed market-access objectives. 2.8. The ESC calls upon the Commission to take these criteria seriously, so as not to give the  impression that such objectives are merely formal declarations. 3. Specific comments3.1. The ESC thinks that stricter definitions are necessary if such  withdrawals or additional benefits for good conduct are to take place. 3.2. The ESC therefore considers that the procedures for adapting benefits should be speeded up, so  that changes in the Community and in the beneficiary countries can be taken into account more fully  and promptly. 3.3. The ESC particularly recalls that the granting of benefits under the GSP is (i) not  prejudicial to later WTO negotiations, (ii) enables account to be taken of Community interests and  (iii) provides better encouragement for beneficiary countries in accordance with their level of  development and with their international co-operation in the areas of human rights, environmental  protection, money laundering and drug trafficking, and the conservation and careful use of  resources. 3.4. The ESC points out the lack of consistency within the EU regarding the conclusion of further  free trade agreements and the granting of GSP benefits to states with which such free trade  agreements exist or are being negotiated. Done at Brussels, 25  April 1996. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER