WRITTEN QUESTION E-1318/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Concern about maintaining non-commercial services outside Europe following the EU's requests in the WTO GATS 2 negotiations.
Date: 2003-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATS, UN Conference on Trade and Development, developing countries, international competition, liberalisation of the market, market access, protective clause, provision of services, services of general interest

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/711

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission is very concerned by the inhuman treatments of prisoners of war, in violation of the
provision of the Geneva Convention, in this war as in any other conflict. In this regard, the behaviour of
the Iraqi authorities interviewing publicly American prisoners, with intimidatory intent, represents a clear
violation of the Geneva Convention. This behaviour is to be condemned.

The Iraqi government has been dissolved following the United States military occupation. Therefore, the
risk of Union citizens becoming prisoners of the Iraqi authorities no longer exists.

(2004/C 78 E/0760)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1318/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Concern about maintaining non-commercial services outside Europe following the EU’s requests in

the WTO GATS 2 negotiations

1.
Is the Commission aware of the outrage expressed by the American national consumer organisation
Public Citizen at the position taken by the Commission in preparation for the WTO negotiations in
Geneva on services (General Agreement of Trade in Services 2000); Public Citizen claims that
the
Commission will be asking for European firms to have access to postal services, drinking water supply,
energy supply, environmental management, public transport, higher education, the distribution of alcohol
and the sale of insurance in the United States and the rest of the world and calling for the abolition of
rules protecting consumers, the environment and democratic decision-making by elected representatives?

Should the reassuring statement made by Commissioner Lamy on 10 March 2003, at the start of the
2.
EP debate on the EU’s approach to the GATS 2 negotiations, to the effect that all the commitments entered
into by the EU are merely temporary, that the audiovisual media should be protected on grounds of
cultural diversity, that government monopolies should remain possible, that there would be no pressure for
privatisation or liberalisation and that the European socio-economic model should be maintained, lead us
to conclude that the EU is much tougher on the outside world than on its own inhabitants?

3.
Following the Unctad contribution to the developing countries’ GATS lists of requests, will the
developing countries be prepared in good time to adopt an equivalent position on the horizontal issues of
emergency safeguard measures and credits for autonomous liberalisation that are of crucial importance to
them, or does the Commission recognise that they need more time?

How does the Commission intend to allay fears outside the EU about demands that would disrupt
4.
local and regional service provision, not least to avoid a situation in which world public opinion sees the
EU as playing the negative role traditionally expected of the United States?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

1.
The Commission is aware that Public Citizen has made a number of sensational and misleading
claims about the Community’s request to the United States. The critique is based on two misperceptions
about the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), namely that it promotes privatisation and that
the agreement is a threat to governments’ ability to regulate in the public interest.

C 78 E/712

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Neither the GATS nor the Union’s requests are aimed at forcing the privatisation of public undertakings,
whether or not they are entrusted with the provision of services of general interest. The Union is seeking
commitments that will allow EU service providers access to third country markets in a number of sectors
where the government has either already decided to open a particular sector to private domestic suppliers
or where experience has shown that competition can be a tool
in improving performance without
endangering equitable access to public services.

For example, current United States commitments in waste water services only cover ‘services contracted by
private industry’. The Union has asked for an extension of this commitment to allow Union service
providers to bid when municipalities contract these services out to private companies. This does not mean
privatisation of municipal services, as it has been suggested, but if a municipality already uses or intends to
use private contractors, there seems to be little reason to exclude Union service suppliers.

Furthermore, the Union is not calling for nor does its requests imply the abolition of rules protecting
consumers, the environment or democratic decision-making by elected representatives. Many services are
strictly regulated for good reason and the GATS explicitly recognises World Trade Organisation (WTO)
members’ sovereign right to regulate economic and non-economic activities within their territory in
pursuance of public policy objectives. To capture its full gains, market opening must be accompanied by
an appropriate institutional and regulatory framework to encourage competition and to help ensure
equitable access to essential services. The Union has no intention of seeking the deregulation of services.

The Union has already opened sectors involved with provision of services of general

2.
interest to
foreign suppliers where these were already open to domestic competition, e.g. telecommunication and
postal services. Second, the Union requests concern sectors where policy objectives such as access for the
including universal service
poor can be ensured through means other than restricting competition,
obligations or subsidies. For many people in developing countries, access to affordable and efficient
services of general interest still remains a distant hope. Removing barriers that restrict the access of foreign
firms or discriminate against them may help improve access to and the performance of certain services of
general interest.

3. WTO members adopted ‘Modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalisation’ at the beginning
of March 2003. By establishing agreed criteria for granting credit
for autonomous liberalisation,
negotiators, from both developed and developing countries, can now engage more confidently in their
bilateral negotiations for specific commitments on market access.

The deadline for concluding negotiations on an emergency safeguard measure under the GATS has been
postponed several times, following lack of agreement between the members seeking such a mechanism and
those who question its desirability and feasibility. The latter group includes both developed countries and
some developing countries. The Union has been active in the discussions, which have not yet shown a
business case that could have been solved by an emergency safeguard mechanism.

A safeguard is temporary in nature and so would not respond to the argument that developing countries
need a mechanism for rolling back commitments that turn out to have unintended consequences. In
addition, such a mechanism for withdrawal of commitments already exists in Article XXI of GATS. Given
the flexibility provided for by GATS, new commitments can, whenever necessary, be underpinned by
specific reservations to deal with emergency situations.

The Union recognises the importance of helping developing countries increase their negotiating capacity
and the important role played by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad)
secretariat
in providing continuous assistance to developing countries’ participation in the services
negotiations. The Union is also working constructively with the group of Least Developed Countries
(LDCs), and other WTO members, on the establishment of ‘Modalities of for the treatment of LDCs in the
negotiations’, as mandated by GATS Article XIX.

4.
The Commission is fully aware that there is concern about the effects of further services liberalisation
and that some people have linked these concerns to cases where privatisation has encountered problems
and the regulatory regime that was introduced proved to be inadequate. Nevertheless, such policy failures

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/713

were not caused by the GATS. The Commission will continue to explain that the GATS process leaves
governments free to choose whether their services should be provided by public or by private companies
and free to regulate in pursuance of public policy objectives. The Commission is currently preparing a
Green Paper on Services of General Interest, which will include a section examining possible links between
these services and trade policy.

In this context, the Commission is committed to ensuring a regular and transparent information and
dialogue with representatives of civil society. Consultation takes place within Directorate General Trade’s
civil society dialogue, where consumer organisations participate. The Commission also meets consumer
organisations to discuss these issues on an ad hoc basis, for example in the Commission Consumer
Consultative Committee or in the context of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), where the
Union and the United States’ consumer organisations are represented.

(2004/C 78 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: Community aid

The sinking of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast in 19 November 2002, caused one of the largest-ever
ecological disasters, with appalling economic and social consequences for a massively fisheries-dependent,
and hence fragile, Objective 1 region.

This disastrous accident, which did not affect Portugal solely and simply because of sea-currents, once
again raised the issue of safety at sea and how to control transport of hydrocarbons. The issue is of
fundamental concern to a country like Portugal, with an immense coastline and extremely vulnerable
islands like Madeira and the Azores.

Following the wreck, the Commission presented a Communication on stepping-up safety at sea, providing
for: earlier application of the measures in the ‘Erika I’ package (measures on port State control of vessels,
closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies and bringing forward the timetable for
withdrawing single-hull oil tankers from service), and the ‘Erika II’ (measures on earlier establishment of
the European Maritime Safety Agency and compensation for victims of oil
increased
international intervention and the introduction of sanctions, for pollution crime, including penal sanctions.

spillages),

In paragraphs 11 and 12 of its resolution of 19 December 2002, the European Parliament called on the
Commission, ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle the
economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the “Prestige” and assist the economic
sectors affected’, and the immediate adoption of measures ‘to alleviate the damage occasioned to those
affected, through the use of the Solidarity Fund’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1.

Four months after the ‘Prestige’ tragedy, what financial resources have been made available, and what
measures have been adopted to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences?

2. Does the Commission possess any estimate of the damage caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’?

3. What has the Commission decided with regard to the possible use of the Solidarity Fund in respect of

the ‘Prestige’ disaster?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to question H-0221/03.