WRITTEN QUESTION P-3055/02 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. General Agreement on Trade in Services.
Date: 2002-10-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATS, access to information, common commercial policy, interinstitutional relations (EU), powers of the institutions (EU), trade agreement, transparency in decision-making

C 242 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

(2003/C 242 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3055/02

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: General Agreement on Trade in Services

When does the Commission intend to consult
fully with European Parliamentarians on the EU’s
negotiating position, and name the countries where the EU is demanding offers in basic service sectors
such as water, energy, postal services and transport? The requests made to other WTO members should be
made available and the Parliament consulted before any EU offers are made.

timetable for current GATS
The November 2001 WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha set a tight
negotiations. The EC has said that it is trying to conduct negotiations in a way that ‘allows time and
policy space for third countries to develop their own positions’. There are eight months between the
submission of requests and the offers timeline. How does the Commission explain the rationale behind
setting the time period for countries to consult, and assess future binding GATS commitments? Does the
Commission agree that the period is insufficient?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Commission made the Union’s initial requests for improved market access to third countries in the
services negotiations available to the Parliament’s Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and
Energy early July 2002. Given their confidential nature, they were transmitted to the Chairman of the
Committee according to the special procedure agreed to ensure that the confidentiality of ‘Union-restricted’
documents is respected.

More generally, the Commission is fully committed to ensuring that Members of the Parliament are
regularly briefed on trade policy issues and consulted on key questions in accordance with the Framework
Agreement of 5 July 2000.

However, whilst the Commission’s aim is to be as transparent as possible with all stakeholders, an
appropriate balance must be struck between transparency and the Commission’s ability to conduct trade
negotiations in an atmosphere conducive to frank and open discussions. In other words the necessary
transparency vis-à-vis the Parliament and vis-à-vis civil society has to go hand in hand with the
Commission exercising its responsibilities. This is the basis on which the Parliament, as the body
responsible for exercising political control of the Commission action, can judge the Commission. The
ultimate objective of transparency is, after all, to ensure effective democratic control.

The Commission will shortly publish on Directorate General Trade’s web site (1) a detailed consultative
document
that summarises the requests received from third countries and compares these to the
Community’s current commitments.

With respect to the question of whether the timeline agreed in Doha between the submission of requests
and the initial offers is sufficient ‘to allow time and policy space for third countries to develop their own
positions’, it should be noted that the new negotiations on services were launched in February 2000.
Although the negotiations have undoubtedly gathered new momentum with the adoption of the Doha
Declaration at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in December 2001, Members have in fact had almost
three years to develop their policy positions, a period all Members found sufficient when agreement was
reached in Doha. Since February 2000 more than 50 World Trade Organisation Member Governments
have tabled written negotiating proposals, either individually or jointly, and a majority of these are by
governments representing developing countries. Negotiating proposals are written proposals in which
Members describe in general terms how they believe particular issues should be dealt with during the
course of the negotiations. The high number of submissions illustrates the extensive preparatory work that
has preceded the actual negotiations.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/trade/index_fr.htm.