Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2001'
Date: 1998-12-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, generalised preferences, originating product, third country

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/27

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during
the discussion:

Point 3.1.2, first paragraph

Replace ‘... firms (in the sense of ...)’ by: ‘economic and social interest groups’.

Result of the vote

For: 54, against: 59, abstentions: 9.

Point 3.1.2, second paragraph

In the first sentence, replace ‘with the benefit of business expertise’ by ‘with the benefit of the expertise
of the economic and social interest groups’.

Result of the vote

For: 47, against: 63, abstentions: 6.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 January
1999 to 31 December 2001’

(1999/C 40/09)

On 2 December 1998 the Economic and Social Committee, acting in pursuance of Rule 23(3)
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for External Relations, which was instructed to drawn up the section’s opinion
on the matter, adopted its opinion on 17 November 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Giesecke.

The Committee adopted the opinion set out below at its 359th plenary session (meeting of
2 December 1998) by a unanimous vote.

1.

Introduction

governments in developing countries and also importers
who wish to focus on transparent markets.

1.1. Over the last few decades, the EU has constantly
improved and adjusted its policy on trade preferences
for developing countries in the light of recent develop-
ments; the EU has, however, taken care not to leave its
own sensitive economic sectors unprotected. The EU
has sought to take account more effectively of the
differing needs of the various groups of developing
countries, whilst, however, also paying greater heed to
the interests of EU importers.

1.3.
A new development was the provision whereby
good conduct on the part of individual developing
countries in the fields of labour law, protection of the
environment and anti-drug measures could be specially
rewarded; another new provision was the graduation
mechanism under which advanced developing countries
gradually ceased to benefit from preferences.

1.2.
The latest major revision of the GSP came into
force in 1995, marked by the beginning of a new ten-year
period of EU tariff arrangements. This revision brought
further progress on transparency and predictability, for

A number of additional

1.4.
improvements and
adjustments are now being proposed three years into
the new period covered by the Community offer.

C 40/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.1999

2. Commission proposals

2.1. With a view to facilitating the application of the
GSP the widely differing provisions for industrial and
agricultural products are to be brought together in the
proposed new regulation and to remain in force until
31 December 2001.

2.2.
In the light of current developments in Asia, the
Commission proposes that the updating of the basic
data determining graduation — which is now due to
take place — should be postponed.

2.3.
The special incentives made available to the
Andean and central American countries to promote
anti-drugs measures are regarded as still being necessary;
the Commission proposes that these measures be con-
tinued, subject to a number of additional conditions. In
the industrial products sector, the scope of these special
incentives is to be extended to include the countries of
the Central American Common Market and Panama. A
new provision is, however, proposed whereby if the
countries concerned are to benefit from a higher level of
special incentives over and above the normal level, they
must respect labour and environmental standards.

2.4.
A number of forestry by-products are to be added
to the list of wood products from tropical forests covered
by the environmental clause.

2.5.
The Commission also confirms its pledge to
bring about duty-free access for virtually all goods
originating in least developed countries by 2005, in line
with the provisions applying to the ACP states.

3. Observations by the ESC

3.1.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the EU is
presenting its offer at this critical juncture for the world
economy. An increasing number of developing countries
and transition countries — indeed whole regions — are
experiencing economic crises which in some cases may
well destabilize their democratic systems. Against this
background the political importance of EU trade policy,
with its promise of continuity and dependability, is way
beyond its importance in commercial terms.

3.2.
The Committee recognizes the efforts made by
the Commission to ensure ongoing development of the
existing GSP. The latest example of the Commission’s
efforts in this respect is the offer to grant additional
rates of preference provided that the beneficiary states
observe internationally recognized core labour and
environmental standards and, in the case of a number
of states, introduce anti-drug measures.

3.3.
The Committee also acknowledges the efforts
made by the Commission to streamline the complicated
administrative procedures involved. In this context the
Committee expressly welcomes the consolidation of all
the various provisions in a single regulation.

3.4.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s
proposal — in the light of economic developments in a
number of developing and transition-countries — to
postpone updating the basic data used in the graduation
mechanism. Failure to do this would mean that some
countries would be likely to be discriminated against in
a manner which is not justified by the current situation.
The Committee eagerly awaits the report announced by
the Commission.

3.5.
In this context the Committee calls upon the
Commission to examine the existing de minimis pro-
vision [Article 30(2)] with a view to considering the case
for increasing the values concerned. An increase would
send out the right message at the right moment in time.

3.6.
The Committee also proposes that the Com-
mission include in the GSP all the core labour standards
included in the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Prin-
ciples and Rights at work, requiring that Article 12 be
amended to include Conventions 100 and 111.

3.7.
The Committee again deplores the fact that a
number of EU Member States have yet to ratify some of
these conventions, in particular Convention No 138.

3.8.
The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that
the provisions have to be transparent and predictable if
the GSP is to meet with broad acceptance amongst the
beneficiary states and EU importers, to be effective (1).
The Committee would therefore be very pleased to see
the Commission attach still greater importance to this
aspect in future.

3.9.
The Committee expressly welcomes the Com-
mission’s pledge to bring about, by the year 2005,
duty-free access for practically all industrial products
from the least developed countries and to simplify the
origin rules and provisions on cumulation which apply
to their export. If possible this process should, however,
be concluded at an earlier date.

3.10.
The Committee supports the Commission’s
view that the principle of ensuring that the measures
have an overall neutral effect should continue to be
regarded as one of the key objectives of the GSP.

The Committee is, however, unable to make an
3.11.
objective assessment of
the effectiveness of earlier
amendments to the GSP, particularly as regards global
neutrality, as the necessary data is not available. The
Committee therefore asks the Commission to provide a
report on trends in imports under the GSP, broken down
by value and supplier country.

3.12.
Should there be a lack of administrative cooper-
ation on the part of authorities in the beneficiary

(1) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 98.

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/29

countries, the Commission proposes to introduce pro-
cedures, administered by the Commission, whereby
defaulting states would be excluded from the preferential
arrangements for a period of three or six months. The
Committee has reservations over a transfer of further
powers to the Commission, but these reservations
are outweighed by the more rapid decision-making
processes. There is, however, in the Committee’s view,
an urgent need for appropriate machinery to protect

the vital
interests of the importers concerned. The
Committee therefore recommends drawing attention in
the Official Journal of the European Communities, at
an early juncture, to any doubts which may arise as
regards the proper application of preference rules to
individual states. Agreements concluded before the
publication of such information should, of course, be
unaffected by any action which may be taken.

Brussels, 2 December 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Directive on a common framework for electronic signatures’

(1999/C 40/10)

On 30 July 1998, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 October 1998. The
rapporteur was Mr Burani.

At its 359th plenary session (meeting of 2 December 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission proposal for a directive on a
legal framework for electronic signatures is the concrete
follow-up to the Communication entitled ‘Ensuring
security and trust in electronic communication —
Towards a European framework for digital signatures
and encryption’ (1).

1.2.
The Communication highlighted a situation call-
ing for the attention of the European authorities,
namely that several Member States have adopted, or are
adopting, different approaches to the regulation of
electronic signatures. This lack of mutual recognition
may well fragment the single market in electronic
commerce and on-line services in the European Union.
There is therefore an urgent need to establish a common

framework which meets two main requirements — to
create a precise legal framework, but one that is flexible
enough to keep up with the ongoing march of technology.

1.3.
The Economic and Social Committee agreed
with the Commission’s views (2) and proposed that
the regulatory framework observe the principles of
self-regulation and subsidiarity, albeit within the precise
limits of a minimum common legislation. Furthermore,
in its remarks on a later Commission Communication,
entitled ‘Globalization and the Information Society —
coordi-
The need for
nation’ (3), the Committee pointed out that the harmon-
ization of European legislation with the rest of the world
— fundamental for the security of electronic commerce
which, by its very nature, knows no bounds — is
progressing too slowly because there are too many
uncoordinated initiatives.

strengthened international

(1) COM(97) 503 final, 8.10.1997.

(2) OJ C 157, 25.5.1998.
(3) OJ C 284, 14.9.1998.