The Committee on\nInternational Trade adopted an own-initiative report by Robert\nSTURDY (ECR, UK) on trade and investment barriers. It discusses the\ntariff and non tariff barriers (NTBs) that pose difficulties for\nthe EU's market access to different countries in the world,\nincluding Russia, Japan, China, India, Brazil and Argentina. It\ntakes the view that removing or reducing unjustified NTBs\napplied by the EU's key strategic partner countries by means of\nregulatory dialogue should be one of the key regulatory priorities\nof the new EU trade policy under the Europe 2020\nStrategy.
\nAccordingly, it calls on\nthe Commission systematically to address the great variety,\ntechnical complexity and political sensitivity of NTBs as part of a\nholistic strategy, including enhanced regulatory dialogue, with\nrespect to all the EU's trading partners, particularly those of\nstrategic importance. It also takes the view that insistence on\nreciprocity of market access for industrialised and emerging\ncountries should be an integral part of EU trade strategy, on a par\nwith the removal or lowering of NTBs.
\nMembers call on the\nCommission to draw a clear distinction between those NTBs which\ngive rise to unfair distortions of competition and those which\nreflect legitimate public-policy aims, notably in relation to\npublic health and the protection of the environment. They\nemphasise, for example, that the European laws on GMOs and the\nhealth- and plant-health-related rules affecting agriculture cannot\nbe regarded as unfair NTBs but should, on the contrary, be defended\nin the international trade arena. They also remind the Commission\nthat European Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy towards\ndeveloping countries should remain within the TRIPS agreement\nobligations and must fully respect the 2001 Doha Declaration on the\nTRIPS agreement and Public Health, especially in the field of\ngeneric medicines and public health, so as to leave the developing\ncountries policy space to address public interest\nconcerns.
\nThe Commission is asked to\naddress these widespread and persistent issues in all plurilateral\nand bilateral trade agreements, especially bilateral free trade\nagreements (FTAs), and to ensure that NTBs are given at least\nas much attention as is currently afforded tariff elimination in\nall appropriate regulatory fora, particularly in its\ntrade negotiations with industrialised and emerging economies.\nIn the field of cooperation with developing countries, especially\nLDCs and Small Island Developing States (SIDs), priority must be\naccorded to aid for trade and to technical and financial\nassistance, in order to help such countries improve their\nregulatory environment while taking account of their specific needs\nin terms of developing their internal markets and protecting their\nembryonic industries and their agricultural structures, which in\nmany cases are vulnerable.
\nIn addition, the committee\nconsiders that the European Parliament should give more attention\nin future to the manner in which NTBs, especially unjustified\nNTBs,have been addressed when trade agreements to ensure\naccess for European exporters and investors, in particular SMEs, to\nthird country markets are assessed, while at the same time\nrespecting the need for special, differentiated treatment for\ndeveloping countries as provided for by WTO\ndisciplines.
\nThe report urges the\nCommission to:
\nMembers believe that one of\nthe keys to lowering NTBs to trade and investment is reform of\nthe GPA in the WTO, with due regard to the multifunctional\nnature of procurement policies, and they call on the major emerging\neconomies to participate in this process and to sign and ratify the\nfuture agreement without delay. They recommend looking into\nregulatory means of ensuring that public procurement contracts for\nprojects funded with EU subsidies may not be awarded to state-owned\nundertakings from third countries which have signed neither the GPA\nnor bilateral mutual market-opening agreements, or alternatively\nthat in such cases the EU may demand repayment of the\nsubsidies.
\nWith regard to raw\nmaterials, the committee considers that the Commission should\npursue a sustainable, comprehensive and cross-policy strategy,\nwhile recognising that export restrictions and export taxes may be\nseen as important for the support of development objectives, the\nprotection of the environment or the sustainable exploitation of\nnatural resources in LDCs and SIDs and other developing countries,\nwith the exclusion of BRIC countries. Noting that the majority of\nWTO members using export taxes are developing countries and LDCs,\nMembers call on the EU to refrain from attempting to ban the use of\nexport taxes for LDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with\nthe exclusion of BRIC countries, at the WTO and in bilateral trade\nagreements and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as it would\nlimit their policy space to use this tool for value-addition,\ndiversification, infant industry protection, food security, revenue\nand environmental considerations as long as they have not reached\nadvanced developing status.
\nLastly, Members take the\nview that a mediation mechanism should be created in the WTO\nto facilitate the removal of NTBs in a constructive, effective,\nrapid and non-confrontational manner, inspired by the SOLVIT\nsystem, in accordance with similar earlier suggestions from both\nthe EU and India.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a\nresolution on trade and investment\nbarriers.
\nIt discusses the tariff and non tariff barriers (NTBs)\nthat pose difficulties for the EU’s market access to different\ncountries in the world, including Russia, Japan, China, India,\nBrazil and Argentina. The Commission's Trade and Investment Barriers\nReport 2011 lists examples where the EU's market\naccess to different countries in the world, including\nindustrialised and major emerging economies and WTO members, is\nbeing constrained more by various non-tariff barriers (NTBs) than\nby trade tariffs, which are being waived substantially as\nglobalisation progresses.
\nReducing NTBs:\nParliament is of the view that removing or reducing unjustified\nNTBs applied by the EU's key strategic partner countries by means\nof regulatory dialogue should be one of the key regulatory\npriorities of the new EU trade policy under the Europe 2020\nStrategy.
\nAccordingly, it calls on the Commission systematically\nto address the great variety, technical complexity and political\nsensitivity of NTBs as part of a holistic strategy, including\nenhanced regulatory dialogue, with respect to all the EU’s\ntrading partners, particularly those of strategic importance. It\nalso takes the view that insistence on reciprocity of market\naccess for industrialised and emerging countries should be an\nintegral part of EU trade strategy, on a par with the removal or\nlowering of NTBs.
\nMembers call on the Commission to draw a clear\ndistinction between those NTBs which give rise to unfair\ndistortions of competition and those which reflect legitimate\npublic-policy aims, notably in relation to public health and the\nprotection of the environment. They emphasise, for example, that\nthe European laws on GMOs and the health- and plant-health-related\nrules affecting agriculture cannot be regarded as unfair NTBs but\nshould, on the contrary, be defended in the international trade\narena. They also remind the Commission that European Intellectual\nProperty Rights (IPR) policy towards developing countries should\nremain within the TRIPS agreement obligations and must fully\nrespect the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and\nPublic Health, especially in the field of generic medicines and\npublic health, so as to leave the developing countries policy space\nto address public interest concerns.
\nTrade agreements: Parliament asks the Commission to address these widespread and persistent\nissues in all plurilateral and bilateral trade agreements,\nespecially bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs), and to\nensure that NTBs are given at least as much attention as is\ncurrently afforded tariff elimination in all appropriate regulatory\nfora, particularly in its trade negotiations with\nindustrialised and emerging economies. In the field of\ncooperation with developing countries, especially LDCs and Small\nIsland Developing States (SIDs), priority must be accorded to\naid for trade and to technical and financial assistance, in order\nto help such countries improve their regulatory environment while\ntaking account of their specific needs in terms of developing their\ninternal markets and protecting their embryonic industries and\ntheir agricultural structures, which in many cases are\nvulnerable.
\nThe Commission is invited to:
\nPriority sectors: Parliament considers that due\npriority should be given to trade and investment barriers that\naffect European service sectors, including ICT and\ntelecommunication, professional and business services, financial\nservices, construction, retail and distribution.
\nWith regard to raw materials, the committee\nconsiders that the Commission should pursue a sustainable,\ncomprehensive and cross-policy strategy, while recognising that\nexport restrictions and export taxes may be seen as important for\nthe support of development objectives, the protection of the\nenvironment or the sustainable exploitation of natural resources in\nLDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with the exclusion of\nBRIC countries. Noting that the majority of WTO members using\nexport taxes are developing countries and LDCs, Members call on the\nEU to refrain from attempting to ban the use of export taxes for\nLDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with the exclusion of\nBRIC countries, at the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements and\nEconomic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as it would limit their\npolicy space to use this tool for value-addition, diversification,\ninfant industry protection, food security, revenue and\nenvironmental considerations as long as they have not reached\nadvanced developing status.
\nMechanism within the\nWTO: according to\nthe Parliament, one of the keys to\nlowering NTBs to trade and investment is reform of the GPA in\nthe WTO, with due regard to the multifunctional nature of\nprocurement policies, and they call on the major emerging economies\nto participate in this process and to sign and ratify the future\nagreement without delay.
\nLastly, Members take the view that a mediation\nmechanism should be created in the WTO to facilitate the\nremoval of NTBs in a constructive, effective, rapid and\nnon-confrontational manner, inspired by the SOLVIT system, in\naccordance with similar earlier suggestions from both the EU and\nIndia.
\nThe Committee on\nInternational Trade adopted an own-initiative report by Robert\nSTURDY (ECR, UK) on trade and investment barriers. It discusses the\ntariff and non tariff barriers (NTBs) that pose difficulties for\nthe EU's market access to different countries in the world,\nincluding Russia, Japan, China, India, Brazil and Argentina. It\ntakes the view that removing or reducing unjustified NTBs\napplied by the EU's key strategic partner countries by means of\nregulatory dialogue should be one of the key regulatory priorities\nof the new EU trade policy under the Europe 2020\nStrategy.
\nAccordingly, it calls on\nthe Commission systematically to address the great variety,\ntechnical complexity and political sensitivity of NTBs as part of a\nholistic strategy, including enhanced regulatory dialogue, with\nrespect to all the EU's trading partners, particularly those of\nstrategic importance. It also takes the view that insistence on\nreciprocity of market access for industrialised and emerging\ncountries should be an integral part of EU trade strategy, on a par\nwith the removal or lowering of NTBs.
\nMembers call on the\nCommission to draw a clear distinction between those NTBs which\ngive rise to unfair distortions of competition and those which\nreflect legitimate public-policy aims, notably in relation to\npublic health and the protection of the environment. They\nemphasise, for example, that the European laws on GMOs and the\nhealth- and plant-health-related rules affecting agriculture cannot\nbe regarded as unfair NTBs but should, on the contrary, be defended\nin the international trade arena. They also remind the Commission\nthat European Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy towards\ndeveloping countries should remain within the TRIPS agreement\nobligations and must fully respect the 2001 Doha Declaration on the\nTRIPS agreement and Public Health, especially in the field of\ngeneric medicines and public health, so as to leave the developing\ncountries policy space to address public interest\nconcerns.
\nThe Commission is asked to\naddress these widespread and persistent issues in all plurilateral\nand bilateral trade agreements, especially bilateral free trade\nagreements (FTAs), and to ensure that NTBs are given at least\nas much attention as is currently afforded tariff elimination in\nall appropriate regulatory fora, particularly in its\ntrade negotiations with industrialised and emerging economies.\nIn the field of cooperation with developing countries, especially\nLDCs and Small Island Developing States (SIDs), priority must be\naccorded to aid for trade and to technical and financial\nassistance, in order to help such countries improve their\nregulatory environment while taking account of their specific needs\nin terms of developing their internal markets and protecting their\nembryonic industries and their agricultural structures, which in\nmany cases are vulnerable.
\nIn addition, the committee\nconsiders that the European Parliament should give more attention\nin future to the manner in which NTBs, especially unjustified\nNTBs,have been addressed when trade agreements to ensure\naccess for European exporters and investors, in particular SMEs, to\nthird country markets are assessed, while at the same time\nrespecting the need for special, differentiated treatment for\ndeveloping countries as provided for by WTO\ndisciplines.
\nThe report urges the\nCommission to:
\nMembers believe that one of\nthe keys to lowering NTBs to trade and investment is reform of\nthe GPA in the WTO, with due regard to the multifunctional\nnature of procurement policies, and they call on the major emerging\neconomies to participate in this process and to sign and ratify the\nfuture agreement without delay. They recommend looking into\nregulatory means of ensuring that public procurement contracts for\nprojects funded with EU subsidies may not be awarded to state-owned\nundertakings from third countries which have signed neither the GPA\nnor bilateral mutual market-opening agreements, or alternatively\nthat in such cases the EU may demand repayment of the\nsubsidies.
\nWith regard to raw\nmaterials, the committee considers that the Commission should\npursue a sustainable, comprehensive and cross-policy strategy,\nwhile recognising that export restrictions and export taxes may be\nseen as important for the support of development objectives, the\nprotection of the environment or the sustainable exploitation of\nnatural resources in LDCs and SIDs and other developing countries,\nwith the exclusion of BRIC countries. Noting that the majority of\nWTO members using export taxes are developing countries and LDCs,\nMembers call on the EU to refrain from attempting to ban the use of\nexport taxes for LDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with\nthe exclusion of BRIC countries, at the WTO and in bilateral trade\nagreements and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as it would\nlimit their policy space to use this tool for value-addition,\ndiversification, infant industry protection, food security, revenue\nand environmental considerations as long as they have not reached\nadvanced developing status.
\nLastly, Members take the\nview that a mediation mechanism should be created in the WTO\nto facilitate the removal of NTBs in a constructive, effective,\nrapid and non-confrontational manner, inspired by the SOLVIT\nsystem, in accordance with similar earlier suggestions from both\nthe EU and India.
\nThe European Parliament adopted a\nresolution on trade and investment\nbarriers.
\nIt discusses the tariff and non tariff barriers (NTBs)\nthat pose difficulties for the EU’s market access to different\ncountries in the world, including Russia, Japan, China, India,\nBrazil and Argentina. The Commission's Trade and Investment Barriers\nReport 2011 lists examples where the EU's market\naccess to different countries in the world, including\nindustrialised and major emerging economies and WTO members, is\nbeing constrained more by various non-tariff barriers (NTBs) than\nby trade tariffs, which are being waived substantially as\nglobalisation progresses.
\nReducing NTBs:\nParliament is of the view that removing or reducing unjustified\nNTBs applied by the EU's key strategic partner countries by means\nof regulatory dialogue should be one of the key regulatory\npriorities of the new EU trade policy under the Europe 2020\nStrategy.
\nAccordingly, it calls on the Commission systematically\nto address the great variety, technical complexity and political\nsensitivity of NTBs as part of a holistic strategy, including\nenhanced regulatory dialogue, with respect to all the EU’s\ntrading partners, particularly those of strategic importance. It\nalso takes the view that insistence on reciprocity of market\naccess for industrialised and emerging countries should be an\nintegral part of EU trade strategy, on a par with the removal or\nlowering of NTBs.
\nMembers call on the Commission to draw a clear\ndistinction between those NTBs which give rise to unfair\ndistortions of competition and those which reflect legitimate\npublic-policy aims, notably in relation to public health and the\nprotection of the environment. They emphasise, for example, that\nthe European laws on GMOs and the health- and plant-health-related\nrules affecting agriculture cannot be regarded as unfair NTBs but\nshould, on the contrary, be defended in the international trade\narena. They also remind the Commission that European Intellectual\nProperty Rights (IPR) policy towards developing countries should\nremain within the TRIPS agreement obligations and must fully\nrespect the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and\nPublic Health, especially in the field of generic medicines and\npublic health, so as to leave the developing countries policy space\nto address public interest concerns.
\nTrade agreements: Parliament asks the Commission to address these widespread and persistent\nissues in all plurilateral and bilateral trade agreements,\nespecially bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs), and to\nensure that NTBs are given at least as much attention as is\ncurrently afforded tariff elimination in all appropriate regulatory\nfora, particularly in its trade negotiations with\nindustrialised and emerging economies. In the field of\ncooperation with developing countries, especially LDCs and Small\nIsland Developing States (SIDs), priority must be accorded to\naid for trade and to technical and financial assistance, in order\nto help such countries improve their regulatory environment while\ntaking account of their specific needs in terms of developing their\ninternal markets and protecting their embryonic industries and\ntheir agricultural structures, which in many cases are\nvulnerable.
\nThe Commission is invited to:
\nPriority sectors: Parliament considers that due\npriority should be given to trade and investment barriers that\naffect European service sectors, including ICT and\ntelecommunication, professional and business services, financial\nservices, construction, retail and distribution.
\nWith regard to raw materials, the committee\nconsiders that the Commission should pursue a sustainable,\ncomprehensive and cross-policy strategy, while recognising that\nexport restrictions and export taxes may be seen as important for\nthe support of development objectives, the protection of the\nenvironment or the sustainable exploitation of natural resources in\nLDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with the exclusion of\nBRIC countries. Noting that the majority of WTO members using\nexport taxes are developing countries and LDCs, Members call on the\nEU to refrain from attempting to ban the use of export taxes for\nLDCs and SIDs and other developing countries, with the exclusion of\nBRIC countries, at the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements and\nEconomic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as it would limit their\npolicy space to use this tool for value-addition, diversification,\ninfant industry protection, food security, revenue and\nenvironmental considerations as long as they have not reached\nadvanced developing status.
\nMechanism within the\nWTO: according to\nthe Parliament, one of the keys to\nlowering NTBs to trade and investment is reform of the GPA in\nthe WTO, with due regard to the multifunctional nature of\nprocurement policies, and they call on the major emerging economies\nto participate in this process and to sign and ratify the future\nagreement without delay.
\nLastly, Members take the view that a mediation\nmechanism should be created in the WTO to facilitate the\nremoval of NTBs in a constructive, effective, rapid and\nnon-confrontational manner, inspired by the SOLVIT system, in\naccordance with similar earlier suggestions from both the EU and\nIndia.
\n