WRITTEN QUESTION E-2879/02 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. The Everything but arms initiative.
Date: 2002-10-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, common commercial policy, economic consequence, generalised preferences, import policy, least-developed country, tariff exemption, trade by product

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/15

2. Would the Commission provide a detailed assessment of the impact on sugar trade flows from LDCs
to the EU since LDCs were given quota-restricted access over a transitional period as part of the Everything
But Arms Initiative. The assessment should include trade flows one year before and at least one year after
implementation of the Everything But Arms Initiative started?

3. Would the Commission give a general assessment of the economic benefits for the LDCs as a
consequence of the implementation of the Everything But Arms Initiative?.

How will the Commission address questions of rules of origin, safeguard measures and supply side

4.
constraints on LDC production and export capacities in the Everything But Arms Initiative?

5. Would the Commission give an overview of
the measures being implemented to improve
administrative procedures regarding LDC exports, in particular in the area of value-added food products?

(2003/C 268 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2879/02

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: The ‘Everything but arms’ initiative

Can the European Commission provide:

(cid:1) a list of the product tariff lines (at the four digit level) where the introduction of the ‘Everything but

arms’ initiative resulted in the elimination of tariffs on goods exported by LDCs;

(cid:1) a comparison of the quarterly imports (in value and volume terms) of each of these products for the

18 months before and after the introduction of the ‘Everything but arms’ initiative;

(cid:1) its own assessment of the impact on trade flows and economic benefits for the LDCs as a consequence

of the implementation of the ‘Everything but arms’ Initiative?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2786/02 and E-2879/02
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

The ‘Everything but arms’ Initiative (EBA) was adopted,
in February 2001, as an amendment to the
Generalised Scheme of Tariff Preferences (GSP) Regulation (1) in force at that time. Prior to EBA, the GSP
Regulation already provided special arrangements for least-developed countries (LDCs) under which they
enjoyed virtually the same preferences as under the Cotonou agreement.

By granting duty and quota free access for all products (except arms), EBA fully liberalised with immediate
effect a total of 1 073 tariff lines. All these tariff lines are agricultural products, except 19, which refer to
industrial products. However, EBA did not immediately liberalise imports of sugar, rice, and bananas. This
concerns a total number of 43 tariff lines, for which EBA provides duty free quotas during the transition
period.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.

As 2001 figures for preferential imports under EBA have only been available since September 2002 and as
two years at least are necessary to objectively assess the impact of the EBA initiative, it is too early to carry
out an assessment of the impact on trade flows from LDCs to the Union.

C 268 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

EBA offers real opportunities for LDCs to increase exports to the Union, but work needs to be done to
ensure that
these opportunities are realized. This is why a comprehensive approach to trade and
development, as set out in the Commission Communication on Trade and Development (2) is required.

The quota of 74 185 tonnes for the first year of EBA (marketing year 2001/2002) was fully utilised. Seven
LDCs participated in the scheme, of which Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique and Burkina Faso all exported to
the Union for the first time. Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi already exported sugar to the Union in the
context of the Sugar Protocol and Special Preferential Sugar quantities but benefitted from increased overall
quantities. It is too early to say how the 2002/2003 quota will be used but the same countries, plus Nepal,
have applied to access it.

Questions of rules of origin and safeguard measures relating to EBA are addressed in the framework of the
Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) which will be reviewed in 2004 including specific safeguard and
monitoring provisions for EBA.

The issue of how developing countries, including the least developed, can benefit from increased market
access and trade can only be tackled in a comprehensive framework. The Commission approach to this
subject has just been set out in the Communication on Trade and Development, and is exemplified in the
approach of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
states.

The need for developing countries, LDCs in particular, to have more effective market access is fully
recognised in the Communication on Trade and Development. The Communication also sets out some of
the measures being taken to address non-tariff barriers (cid:1) which would include administrative barriers.
With regards to ACP LDCs, a central objective of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) mandate is
to simplify all requirements and procedures related to imports and exports, in particular with regard to
customs processes, import licensing, customs valuation, transit rules and pre-shipment inspection. Co-
operation will go far beyond administrative procedures. By extending ACP-Union co-operation to all areas
relevant to trade, EPAs will help to strengthen the capacity of ACP countries, LDC and non LDC, to deal
with these issues.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff

preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001, OJ L 357 van 30.12.1998.

(2) COM(2002) 513 final.

(2003/C 268 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2002)

Subject: Additional financial support for developing countries in implementing the Climate Convention

In its conclusions of 11 November 1999, the Development Council recognised that official development
aid from the EC has several comparative advantages, which could be used to support initiatives on climate
change and that this aid has a role to play in supporting the objectives of the Climate Convention and it
called on the Commission to consider this further.

Following the approval by the Conference of Parties to the Climate Convention of the Bonn Agreements,
the then Belgian Presidency of the Council, on behalf of the EC and its Members States as well as Canada,
New Zealand, Norway,
issued a political declaration on 23 July 2001 on
additional financial aid to developing countries for implementation of the Climate Convention. In that
declaration the EU and these like-minded countries together pledged to make additional resources of
EUR 450 million a year available by 2005 through various channels, in particular the Global Environment
Facility (GEF), through additional bilateral and multilateral aid, via financial contributions to the three new

Iceland and Switzerland,