WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/01 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Duty on energy-saving light bulbs from China.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, electrical equipment, environmental impact, import, reduction of gas emissions

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/11

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2001)

In the Communication of 4 July 2001 on the development of the External Service (1) the Commission set
out its programme of priorities for the opening of new Delegations. It also set out its plans concerning the
closure or streamlining of a number of existing Delegations which are necessary to enable the new
openings to take place in view of the limited financial resources available for administration of the External
Service.

While the 2001 Communication indeed makes reference to the Delegation to Cape Verde, the decision to
streamline the Delegation in Praia and to appoint a non-resident Head of Delegation had been taken
previously in the framework of the Commission’s Communication on the development of the External
Service of 18 July 2000 (2).

Following this decision, the Head of Delegation to Cape Verde was not replaced when he left the country
on retirement at the end of February 2001.

The decision to place the Delegation to Cape Verde under the responsibility of the existing regional
Delegation to Senegal, which is also responsible for the Delegation to Gambia, was taken purely on the
basis of administrative and logistical considerations. Under the deconcentration exercise the Delegation to
Senegal will be allocated additional staff to enable it to provide reinforced support to the other countries
for which it is responsible. The staffing in Cape Verde will also be reinforced under the same exercise.

It is therefore foreseen that, with this increased support, the Commission decision will not adversely affect
the programme of cooperation with Cape Verde.

(1) COM(2001) 381 final.
(2) COM(2000) 456 final.

(2002/C 160 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Duty on energy-saving light bulbs from China

The Commission has imposed an anti-dumping duty on the import of cheap energy-saving light bulbs
from China. These light bulbs use extremely low amounts of energy and would therefore have a significant
impact on the Community’s climate and energy policies. The duty penalises European consumers and may
mean that new power stations will need to be built as the unnaturally high prices oblige consumers to buy
inefficient light bulbs rather than the energy-saving variety.

Is the Commission aware of how this duty is undermining the chances of meeting the targets set in the
Kyoto agreement on the climate, and is this duty compatible with the desire to achieve energy efficiency,
sustainable production and consumption? Does the Commission intend to remove this anti-dumping duty,
and if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

By Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive antidumping duty and
integrated electronic compact
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of
fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China (1),
following a
proposal by the Commission,
imposed definitive anti-dumping duties, ranging from 0 to 66,1 %, on
imports of energy saving lamps originating in the People’s Republic of China.

the Council,

C 160 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

The Commission fully supports the aims and objectives set in the Kyoto Agreement. However, anti-
dumping measures are taken in order to counteract unfair trade practices which are actionable both in
terms of World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Community legislation.
the
investigation showed the existence of injurious dumping by Chinese exporting producers.

In the present case,

The anti-dumping instrument, in conformity with the relevant WTO Agreement, is intended to combat
unfair trade practices. As such, it is a part of the Community’s trade policy and cannot be a means to
achieve other Community policy objectives. Therefore, the Community industry producing energy saving
lamps cannot be expected to bear the costs of the Community’s energy and environmental policies
through suffering from unfair trade practices.

the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact

In this context,
the Commission’s
investigation did include an extensive evaluation of allegations made by interested parties, viz. that anti-
dumping duties are contrary to Community energy saving policies, as they could result in increases of the
retail prices for consumers and thus reduce the sales volume of energy saving lamps.

that

However, it was established in the investigation that any possible price increases following the imposition
of the measures may depend on several factors, e.g. the pricing behaviour of the Chinese exporting
producers, the ability of importers to pass on any increases in import prices to retailers and the extent to
which the import trade pattern will change due to 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, as this latter producer was found not to have dumped its products on the
Community market. Before this background, it was 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.

Given the above, the Commission concluded that it was not against the interest of the Community to
impose anti-dumping measures on energy saving lamps,
thus eliminating unfair competition. The
Commission therefore sees no reason to propose a change to or withdrawal of the duties.

(1) OJ L 195, 19.7.2001.

(2002/C 160 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Seychelles

Have the recommendations of the study of the Seychelles economy by Maxwell Stamp & Co been acted
upon? Was compliance with the recommendations a condition of the EU’s support?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Macroeconomic Study conducted in 2000 by Maxwell Stamp is still, technically, in draft form, since
the validation workshop D one of the components of the study D has not yet been held, due undoubtedly
to the reluctance of the Seychelles Government to take on board the Study’s recommendations.