WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations.
Date: 1999-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATT, Uruguay Round, World Trade Organisation, consumer, economic forecasting, goods and services, impact study, international trade, liberalisation of the market, negotiation of an agreement (EU), price of agricultural produce, trade agreement (EU)

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/7

(2000/C 330 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99

by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations

The WTO Millennium Round is scheduled to include negotiations on further liberalisation in the
agricultural sector. Further liberalisation is appropriate, however, only if it helps to increase the prosperity
of farmers and consumers.

Has there already been an official evaluation by the WTO and/or the Commission of the impact that
1.
the Agreement on Agriculture reached during the GATT Uruguay Round has had on prices and incomes in
the EU, the USA and the rest of the world (evaluations up to and including 1999)?

How does the Commission evaluate the impacts of the GATT Uruguay Round? I would appreciate an
2.
evaluation not only of the two exceptional years 1995 and 1996 but for the whole period from 1995 until
1999. I would similarly appreciate it if the assessment focused predominantly on quantities and price
trends in the markets rather than simply on the development of world trade in value terms.

3.

Has liberalisation actually produced benefits for the consumer?

4.

Have food prices fallen, and to what extent?

Has food safety and quality improved as a result of the opening up of markets and the SPS

5.
agreement?

6. What view should be taken in this context of the WTO panel that monitors the prohibition of
imports of beef produced with the aid of growth hormones?

7. What is the relationship between the expansion of world trade and the general trend in incomes in
the EU and other WTO member countries, and how is any rise in incomes distributed among the
population?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

1.
Impacts of the agreement on agriculture have been simulated by the Economic research and analysis
division (ERAD) of the World trade organisation (WTO), using the global trade analysis project (GTAP)
model (cid:129) an applied computable general equilibrium model of the world economy. Welfare changes were
expressed in terms of real income and were reported in terms of billions of US$ 1 992. Positive results for
economic welfare from the agreement can be expected for the Community, the United States, Japan, and
East Asia. Another analysis on the impact of trade liberalisation for goods and services was presented in
1995 by the World Bank. Also in this case the highest gains are expected for Japan and the Community.

2.
An exact assessment of the General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) Uruguay Round (UR)
impacts on prices and quantities is difficult to make, due to many external factors playing a role. Strong
turbulence on the international market (e.g. the crisis in Asia and Russia) makes it difficult to isolate and
calculate the particular net effects of the UR agreement. However, it involved for the first time the whole
agricultural sector. Indeed, the UR was labelled by some as (cid:145)Bringing agriculture into the GATT(cid:146) and it was
seen as the most far reaching negotiating effort yet undertaken. The correct implementation of the
agreement up to now, suggests that to set clear and transparent rules on agricultural trade helped stop
the increasing frictions among trading partners, which in the Eighties were depressing world markets.

C 330 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

In principle, liberalisation benefits consumers by increasing the competitiveness in the market, and
3.
thus allowing a wider choice among products at the best price. For the Community, agricultural trade has
not been liberalised completely, but the common agricultural policy reforms have made significant efforts
in shifting away from the most trade distortive policies (e.g. from price support to direct payments). This
already benefits consumers who no longer have to pay the implicit price of protection when buying
agricultural products. However, the input share of agricultural raw products has decreased over time for
most final products bought by the consumer.

Regarding international prices, because of the many variables involved (see 2) it is difficult to isolate
4.
the influence of trade liberalisation on price trends and price variability. For the Community, the reduction
in price support has led to lower prices for agricultural products, which partially translate into lower food
prices (as the agricultural raw material is only a small part of the final food product).

5.
There is no information concerning an improvement or a deterioration in food safety and quality
resulting from the opening up of markets and the Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement. In the long
term the implementation of the SPS agreement is expected to improve food safety globally by way of co-
operation and technical assistance to developing countries (Article 9).

6.
The Community position that it has a right to establish higher standards of protection, for instance
compared to international Codex Alimentarius standards, has been recognised by the WTO appellate body.
It has also recognised that a WTO member could take measures founded in minority scientific views. Any
measures should be based on scientific risk assessment.

From the economic perspective,

trade liberalisation increases incomes through producers(cid:146) and
7.
consumers(cid:146) welfare. Producers enjoy larger markets and the opportunity of specialisation, and consumers
enjoy lower prices due to increased competition. Assuming simultaneous and mutual
liberalisation at
world level and competitive markets, the distribution of these benefits would be proportional to the degree
of liberalisation realised by each country and each sector. The distribution of the rise in welfare and
incomes, which can be achieved within a country due to trade liberalisation, depends also on the tax
regimes the country applies.

(2000/C 330 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2136/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Translation of harmonised standards pursuant

to the lifts directive into the eleven official

languages of the EU

On 1 July 1999 European directive 95/16/EC (1) of 29 June 1995 became applicable to all new lifts. From
1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 this directive was purely indicative. It was transposed into Belgian law
through royal decree of 10 August 1998 concerning lifts (Official Gazette of Belgium of 11 September
1998). The royal decree is therefore compulsory for all new lifts in the Belgian federation.

However, translation of the harmonised standards laid down by the European directive into the eleven
official languages of the European Union leaves something to be desired. At present the standards exist
only in three of
languages: German, English and French. This is a source of
discrimination between lift manufacturers in the 15 Member States. Only those who have a German,
English or French version of the harmonised standards can install new lifts trouble-free. Manufacturers
speaking other languages (Danish, Finnish, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish) are left
in the cold because they do not have the correct translation of the harmonised standards.

the eleven official