Доклад: European Union. External trade

Доклад: European Union. External trade

is determined, or under limited conditions. The Commission has progressively

extended the scope for such transfers by recognizing the adequacy of the data

protection regimes of Hungarian, Swiss, and U.S. companies participating in

the “safe harbour” arrangement, and certain data transfers to Canada.

The e-Commerce Directive, which entered into force on 17 January 2002,

establishes that contracts concluded by electronic means are recognized as

such, and legal barriers to their conclusion are removed, complementing the

e-signatures Directive. In addition, a new regulation on jurisdiction and the

enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters gives EU consumers

the right to sue foreign Internet providers of goods and services in the

consumers’ local court rather than in the foreign jurisdiction.

In February 2002, the EU adopted a new policy on the value-added taxation of

electronic deliveries of information society services (e.g., software, music,

video) to consumers in the EU from service providers established outside the

EU, which are currently not assessed VAT.

Government report back to top <>

TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY: EUROPEAN UNION

The EU and the WTO

Strengthening and promoting the multilateral system

An open and strong multilateral trading system is the best guarantee

against the threat of unilateralism and constitutes one of the key tools to

manage the process of globalisation. The EU will continue to work to reinforce

the WTO, enlarging and improving its system and promoting a more active

participation of all its Members, including in the negotiations now underway.

The EU has continued and will do so in the future to work assiduously for the

earliest possible accession on commercially viable terms of all

candidates having applied to join the WTO, in particular LDCs. In this respect,

the EU very much welcomes the Peoples’ Republic of China and Chinese Taipei

accession to the WTO during the period covered by this review, after 15 years

of long and arduous negotiation. Their accessions constitute a big step towards

making the WTO a truly global organisation.

The EU attaches the greatest importance to the correct and timely

implementation of the agreements to which all WTO members have subscribed as

an essential element for a well-functioning multilateral trading system. In

this context, the EU welcomes the fact that during the period under review,

both before and at Doha, many concerns related to implementation could be

resolved, and that agreement was reached on a framework to address the

outstanding issues. The EU continues to actively participate in

implementation-related discussions, including those related to special and

differential treatment, with a view to settling all outstanding issues to the

satisfaction of all WTO members, and remains open to considering proposals to

readjust agreements as part of the single undertaking.

During the period of this review, the EU has participated actively in the

various phases of the WTO negotiations on agriculture and services since the

launch of the built-in-agenda negotiations in January 2000. In that

respect, the EU and other Members have submitted several papers on

agriculture, including a comprehensive negotiating proposal. Other technical

papers submitted cover such issues as export competition and non-trade concerns

(labelling and food safety). The EU position, based on Article 20 of the

Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), takes into account the need to aim at a balance

between trade concerns (market access, export competition, domestic support)

and non-trade concerns (the protection of the environment, the sustained

vitality of rural communities, food safety and other consumer concerns

including animal welfare), which reflect important societal goals. Moreover,

the EU considers that further liberalisation and expansion of trade for

agricultural products are an important contribution to sustained and continued

economic growth, in both developed and developing countries.

On the services side, during the period covered by this review the EU

played an active part in the work of the Council for Trade in Service, the

Special Sessions and their respective subsidiary bodies. The EU has tabled

proposals not only on its overall approach to the services negotiations but

also for most of the sectors covered by the GATS.

As regards intellectual property rights, the EU has continued to participate in

the TRIPs built-in agenda and acted as a facilitator in the discussions

on TRIPS and health when preparing for the new round. Following the successful

decision on TRIPS and Health taken at Doha, the EU is now developing ideas to

improve access to medicines for countries without domestic production.

The EU continues to be an active user of the WTO dispute settlement

mechanism. Since the date of the previous report, the EU has requested

consultations with other WTO Members on seven occasions. Those procedures are

still ongoing.

As a complainant, and also as a third party, the EU has been especially

active in the field of trade defence (Anti-dumping, Countervailing duties and

Safeguards). The dispute settlement activity in this area has significantly

contributed to the clarification of key provisions of the relevant agreements.

In this regard, the EU would highlight the systemic importance of the case

against the 1916 US Anti-dumping Act (DS136), which concerned the use of

instruments other than duties against dumping of exports, and the cases on

safeguard measures, such as “US-Wheat Gluten” (DS166). The interest of the EU

in preventing the misuse of trade defence instruments is broadly shared among

WTO Members. The complaint against the US Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset

Act (DS217), which has been brought by 11 co-complainants, best exemplifies

this general concern within the WTO Membership. Other important areas where the

EU has brought dispute settlement cases are intellectual property and

subsidies. In the latter field, the landmark “FSC” case (DS108) on the use of

tax breaks as export subsidies provided further evidence of the need to address

the sequencing of Articles 21.5 and 22.6 DSU.

Regarding the cases in which the EU was the defendant, the EU would like

to underscore the results of the “asbestos” case (DS135), which reaffirmed that

health protection can be set as an overriding goal of public policy. The EU

would also highlight its efforts to achieve mutually satisfactory settlements

to trade disputes, which have notably led to a solution that puts an end to the

longstanding “banana” dispute (DS27). The EU remains fully committed to the

successful resolution of the other cases where the EU is the defendant.

A key EU priority continues to be the full integration of developing

countries, in particular the least developed countries (LDCs), in the

multilateral trading system and the global economy, so as to help them benefit

from the opportunities for growth and development. The EU was therefore one of

the main proponents of the development-centred round of new negotiations

launched in Doha, and in addition to this has taken action autonomously to help

developing countries in their efforts to integrate. In particular, the EU

adopted in February 2001 the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, which grants

duty-free and quota-free access for all LDC exports to the EU. The EBA has

already taken effect, with only three products — rice, sugar and bananas —

subject to a transition to duty -free and quota-free access. The EU welcomes

the subsequent commitment by other developed countries to enact similar

initiatives in favour of LDCs.

Experience has shown that many countries have difficulties in making use of the

trade opportunities offered, and improved market access therefore must be

complemented by capacity building measures. The EU supports trade related

assistance and capacity building in its bilateral programmes and as part of

its participation in multilateral co-operation. As regards bilateral

programmes, the EU redefined its development policy priorities in 2000,

identifying trade as a development priority, and has since then begun to

mainstream trade actions in all bilateral and regional programmes, including

support for WTO negotiations, rule-making and supply side. At the multilateral

level, the EU was the primary contributor to the WTO Doha Development Agenda

Global Trust Fund, with the European Community and Member States together

contributing more than 60% of total pledges made in March 2002. The EU believes

that the needs for trade related assistance go beyond the competence of the WTO

Secretariat as such and requires increased efforts and closer co-operation

among international organisations, in particular the Bretton Woods

institutions, UNCTAD, UNDP and ITC, including in the Integrated Framework for

Trade-related Technical Assistance for LDCs and other similar mechanisms.

The access of EU goods and services to markets around the world for the benefit

of consumers and business world-wide remains a primary objective for the EU.

The EU’s market access strategy focuses on the elimination of important

market access barriers, by using to the full the various multilateral and

bilateral instruments and opportunities at its disposal: the WTO dispute

settlement procedure, consultation and bilateral agreements with WTO members

and others, and the new negotiating round. A new version of the market access

database, the operational tool of the strategy, was released on the internet

during the period of this review.

The EU retains the option to use, where necessary and appropriate, relevant

trade defence instruments, in the form of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

measures, to counter unfair injurious trading practices from third countries.

Given the importance of its trade flows, the EU is an overall moderate user of

such instruments. In its actions, the EU takes care of the concerns of

developing countries. It is noteworthy that although EU legislation provides

for the possibility to apply safeguard measures, the EU has made very limited

use of this instrument since the entry into force of the WTO agreements.

Indeed, the EU has only imposed one such measure since 1992. The exceptional

measure on imports of steel was taken in 2002 in full conformance with the

safeguards agreement. It followed the own US safeguard measures which

effectively closed the US steel market. On the contrary, the EU’s safeguard

measures took the form of generous TRQs, which preserved traditional levels of

imports on its market. The EU attaches the greatest importance to all WTO

members adhering to effective WTO disciplines in the area of trade defence.

Preparing and launching a broad and balanced round

Drawing from the lessons of the Seattle Conference, which failed to launch a new

round of multilateral trade negotiations, the EU like others adapted its

approach to the new round, in particular by recognising that the WTO needed to

work in a more inclusive and transparent way vis-à-vis all Members, and

improve communication with the outside world. On the substance of the lessons

drawn from Seattle, the EU took into account other Members’ opinions —

especially developing countries — and continued bridge building efforts with

trading partners in order to overcome differences. This modified approach was

set out in the EC strategy paper of December 2000 which was generally

well-received as a sign of flexibility and creativity. The EU thereafter

continued efforts to launch an ambitious round, recognising that only a broad

agenda could both reconcile different Members’ views and take account of all

Member’ essential interests. Supported by the EU’s extensive consensus building

efforts with other WTO Members, in particular developing countries and LDCs,

the modified strategy was certainly one element in securing support for the

successful launch of a new round of trade negotiations at the 4th

Ministerial Conference at Doha in November 2001.

The DDA, encompassing both market access and rule making, and driven by a

strong development objective, offers a major opportunity to promote global

economic growth and sustainable development, and to further strengthen the

rules-based multilateral trading system.

The fundamental reasons for a broad round that pertained before Seattle have

remained valid in the preparatory period before Doha and beyond. First, as

regards further trade liberalisation, both developed and developing

countries seek improved market access for their products and services, in order

to increase international economic growth, to fully participate in the global

economy and to restore business confidence at a critical juncture of the world

economy. Agriculture, services and non-agricultural tariffs are all therefore

key areas for improving market access.

On agriculture, the EU was already committed to negotiations under the

built-in agenda and recognised that in a new round many participants expected

to go beyond Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture in terms of the level

of ambition. The EU continuously showed its readiness to play its part in these

negotiations by setting the pace and gradient of further reform, including a

deadline for the conclusion of the negotiations. The EU aimed at Doha to ensure

that the outcome would balance its interests in its capacity as a major

exporter and importer of agricultural products, while taking account of the

non-trade dimension of agricultural policy. The Doha Ministerial brought a

satisfactory outcome on agriculture, in confirming the commitment to negotiate

on market access, domestic support and all forms of export subsidies, without

prejudice to the final outcome, and clearly acknowledging the multifunctional

nature of this sector and the need to take fully into account the interest of

developing countries.

As far as services are concerned, the EU’s objective was to make

progress in the ongoing GATS 2000 negotiations on liberalisation of

international trade in services. Apart from reaching improved market access

world-wide for its services exports, the EU encourages an increased

participation by developing countries in the negotiations. The EU therefore

welcomes the agreement reached in Doha on the dates for the submission of

requests and initial offers which are important elements to ensure progress in

the negotiations, and hopes to see through the negotiations an increase in the

number and quality of market access and national treatment commitments across

services sectors and modes of supply, as well as further development of

regulatory disciplines. Developing countries in particular are likely to

benefit significantly from further liberalisation of services sectors which

continue to grow in importance. Liberalisation of the service sector however

needs to be accompanied by an appropriate institutional and regulatory

framework to ensure competition, to allow governments to pursue non-economic

objectives, and to ensure continued access to essential services for the poor.

Implementing appropriate institutional and regulatory safeguards is

particularly a challenge for many developing countries, which is why the EC and

its Member States are putting such emphasis on trade related technical

assistance and capacity building (TRTA/CB).

In respect of non agricultural market access, the EU in the period under

review continued to favour an ambitious mandate that includes the elimination

of barriers with a comprehensive product coverage without any a priori

exclusions. The EU was therefore pleased that at Doha agreement was reached on

a mandate that is more ambitious than those of previous rounds, and more

specific in that Members have agreed to reduce or as appropriate eliminate

tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation. As with other elements of the

Doha Agenda, negotiations on market access for non-agricultural goods are

likely to have more fruitful results if placed within the wider framework of

the DDA negotiations aimed at achieving a more transparent and predictable

multilateral system of rules.

Regarding WTO Rules, the EU’s view during the period under review

continued to be that the scope of WTO rule making needed to be broadened if the

multilateral system were to respond to the effects of globalisation, and if

traders and investors world-wide were to enjoy a predictable, transparent and

non-discriminatory framework in which to make economic decisions and to

compete. Decisions to negotiate multilateral agreements on investment,

competition, trade facilitation and public procurement as well as a

clarification of the interaction of important trade and environmental issues

therefore continued to constitute a key element of the EU agenda for the round.

From an EU point of view it has continued to be equally important to seek

improvements to existing rules in such areas such as trade defence or technical

barriers to trade, and regional trade agreements, in order again to improve

transparency and predictability for traders, investors, consumers and

governments.

As part of its revised strategy for the new trade Round, the EU in the period

under review consciously decided to adjust its negotiating objectives in

several key rulemaking areas, to take account of the opinions of other WTO

Members. On investment, the EU sought simply to put manufacturing

investment on the same footing that services FDI already enjoyed in the GATS —

an approach with several years of history and with which WTO Members were by

then familiar. The EU strongly welcomes therefore the objective set at Doha to

establish a multilateral framework aimed at improving the conditions for

Foreign Direct Investment world-wide. The result is of high importance for the

EU in its capacity as one of the main sources for FDI around the world, but

indeed constitutes a golden opportunity for all WTO members to develop a

balanced framework of rules that will ensure a level playing field with more

stable and predictable investment conditions world-wide and be conducive to

sustainable development.

On competition, the EU in its revised strategy suggested some basic

rules that would help all Members to strengthen their ability to deal with

anti-competitive practices. The decision at Doha to work towards a multilateral

framework on competition policies, following the current preparatory phase,

will contribute towards the more effective application of domestic competition

regimes and be of benefit for consumers and EU business operating abroad around

the world.. The elements for such a framework agreed at Doha correspond to

those proposed by the EU, and reflect a realistic and progressive approach

towards the development of competition disciplines at multilateral level,

including the need to respond to the particular interests and concerns of

developing countries.

It was equally important to the EU to seek a WTO agreement on trade

facilitation aiming at streamlining customs procedures, cutting costs and

red tape, which continues to be a major constraint on developing countries’

export performance. Such an agreement would imply significant savings by

helping governments to improve efficiency of controls and, ultimately, higher

revenue intakes. The Doha mandate on trade facilitation reflects the objective

shared by many Members of simplifying customs and related trade procedures,

including transit measures to boost trade between developing countries in

particular. The mandate also reflects the development objectives of trade

facilitation, including the notion that assistance to build capacity should be

an integral part of the work and be approached in a systematic manner.

Regarding government procurement, the EU had in the period of this review argued

in favour of negotiating a set of rules on transparency, as a means to reduce

the trade-distorting effect that different procurement practices may have. The

EU welcomes the fact that the WTO at Doha recognised the important contribution

that procurement makes to the economy and its effect on trade, and launched

negotiations. Multilateral rules on transparency in government procurement

although not requiring the opening up of procurement to WTO Members, will

increase knowledge of procurement methods and promote contract opportunities

while maintaining existing preferences to domestic suppliers.

On environment, an issue of importance for trade predictability but also

a domestic sensitive issue for the EU, it was made clear that the EU’s agenda

was a finite one –the objective was not to change WTO disciplines but to

clarify or confirm the existing rules especially as interpreted by recent

panels. The EU sought for a mandate on environment that was specific, that the

outcome should be clarification, and that it should be non-discriminatory and

non-protectionist. The agreement in Doha to begin a negotiation to better frame

the interaction between the WTO and environmental issues is thus a significant

step for the trading system, and reflects the EU’s and other members’ calls for

increased action in the WTO in favour of sustainable development.

Regarding trade defence rules, the EU in the period under review was

receptive to the proposal for a balanced negotiation on WTO rules to take place

that will meet the demands of developing countries and allow them to search for

improvements to the existing WTO Agreements without calling into question their

basic principles. These objectives have been met in the Doha mandate.

As regards regional trade agreements, the EU objective to start

negotiations for clear and quite strict rules defining the conditions to be

met, for FTAs and regional agreements to be WTO-compatible, was also

satisfactorily agreed.

The EU approached Doha with several objectives regarding the TRIPS

agreement, all of which have been met. The Doha declaration contains a

clear provision that negotiations on multilateral register will have to be

completed by the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference and refers also to the TRIPs

mandate for negotiations on extension of the coverage of geographical

indications for the benefit of business and consumers around the world. It also

stipulates that the issue of TRIPS/CBD relationship and protection of

traditional knowledge be examined and that appropriate action should be taken,

reflecting the EU’s commitment to take account of developing countries

interests in this area.

In addition to helping to launch negotiations on TRIPS within the Doha agenda,

the EU also played a crucial bridge-builder role in the adoption of a

Declaration on TRIPs and public health, that reflects the EU’s

conviction according to which the TRIPs Agreement can and should be interpreted

and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members’ right to protect public

health. This Declaration, which is in line with the position adopted by the EU,

is a major achievement, which succeeds both in safeguarding the TRIPs Agreement

while recognising the importance of Members being able to pursue their

legitimate public health goals.

The EU has played an active role in the DSU review. In accordance with

the Doha Declaration, the DSU negotiations aim to agree on improvements and

clarifications not later than May 2003. The EU has recently submitted a

comprehensive contribution to the negotiation process that it hopes will help

WTO Members to fulfil the Doha mandate.

In all its considerations regarding the future shape of the negotiating agenda

the EU was at pains to ensure that the round included the interests of

developing countries. This concerns in particular negotiations to improve

market access in key sectors like agriculture and textiles, strengthening and

tightening of trade defence rules, a review of the development aspects of the

subsidies agreements, extension of TRIPS to cover products of importance to

developing countries, an across the board review of special and differential

treatment provisions, and substantial support to build capacity.

The EU has also remained committed in the past two years to develop a meaningful

dialogue, involving in particular the ILO and the WTO, on questions relating to

trade, labour, and social development. The Commission’s communication 18

July 2001 on “Promoting Core Labour Standards and Improving Social Governance

in the Context of Globalisation” addressed the issue in a comprehensive manner

by suggesting a multi-disciplinary work programme. The EU is committed to help

promote the effective application of core labour standards globally, while

eschewing the use of trade sanctions to enforce them. Internationally, it

recognises the key role of ILO and the need to strengthen ILO instruments for

the effective application of core labour standards. All Member States but two

have ratified all eight core ILO conventions. In addition, the joint forum

between ILO and WTO — which since Seattle has emerged as the preferred way

forward — remain a key element of the strategy. In this context, recent ILO

developments — notably the creation of the World Commission on the Social

Dimension of Globalisation — are very positive. The EU aimed at Doha for a

statement reflecting Members’s attachment to improving the WTO/ILO dialogue on

social development questions. Although the Doha outcome on trade and social

development is from an EU point of view too modest, it does still provides a

basis to make progress on the issue, and the EU will work to ensure that WTO

does indeed contribute constructively to the ILO process.

Finally, improvements were registered during the period under review regarding

transparency and the participation of Civil Society. Domestically,

the EU intensified its efforts at policy dialogue and consultation with

representatives of civil society, recognising that it is primarily at the

domestic level — within the jurisdiction of each Member — that such

consultation and arbitration between different social partners and interests

must take place. Within the WTO, the EU consistently encouraged more frequent

and structured dialogue with parliaments and civil society representatives, and

was pleased that it was possible, both before and at Doha for Members to

discuss issues in a constructive way with a civil society which is now playing

a fuller role in WTO work than ever before and with no detrimental effect on

the essentially — and rightly — intergovernmental nature of the WTO. Fewer in

numbers and less prominent in Doha than in Seattle, civil society’s influence

was nonetheless more clear: the Doha outcome on TRIPs and health for example

reflects a commendably prompt and operational WTO response, inter alia to a

civil society campaign launched less than two years earlier. The EU will

continue to seek improvements to the transparency and effectiveness of the

organisation, including possible institutional improvements. In this respect,

the Doha declaration, despite not being very specific, clearly provides a

mandate for greater transparency, above all vis-à-vis the members of the

organisation. In addition, on issues such as consultation and open meetings,

the Secretariat will, with its greater autonomy, be able to launch more

intensive dialogue with parliaments and civil society. Further thought needs

however to be given to WTO reform in order to improve in particular the

efficiency of decision-making. Finally, part of the efforts to improve the

institutional working of the WTO relates to the ongoing review of the DSU,

where the EU favours the introduction in the DSU of sufficient flexibility for

parties to decide whether all or parts of the proceeding should be open to the

public, as well as a better definition of the framework and conditions for the

submission of amicus curiae briefs.

In sum, the far-reaching results of the Doha Conference reflect very

well the EU’s overall objectives for the next negotiating round: a fourfold

agenda to further liberalise market access, update and improve WTO rules,

promote a development agenda and address issues of public concern. The

declarations are both faithful to the EU’s negotiating mandate and reflect our

broad political and economic objectives, the interest of business and civil

society as well as the global economic interest, including the needs of

developing countries. The emphasis on developing country needs and on

sustainable development is particularly welcome.

As the major systemic gain, Doha potentially takes the WTO into a new

era where its commitment to sustainable development — always central to its

mandate — is now made more explicit and more operational. The result of this

new round should over time significantly improve the contribution of the WTO to

sustainable development and improve international economic governance, policy

aims that find their parallel in the EU’s own continued construction. Both

multilaterally and within the EU, a balance between rule making and progressive

liberalisation continue to represent the right policy mix to encourage

sustainable development and the better management of economic change. The EU

sees its immediate task now to carry out negotiations in a way that reflects

the objectives of the Doha Development Agenda and the EU’s own goals.

Bilateral and regional trade relations

In addition to its support for the multilateral trading system the EU is

engaged in developing trade relations with other trade partners in the world

through a number of preferential trade regimes, free-trade areas and regional

initiatives, and other bilateral relations. Many of these relationships

reflect the global economic and trade reach of the EU — which remains the

major trading partner for many countries — or are the expression of broader

geopolitical objectives. As a matter of trade policy however, the EU’s active

engagement in a range of regional trade initiatives reflects above all the

view that in the right circumstances such relations can — and indeed must —

contribute to and strengthen the multilateral system.

Preferential trade regimes

The new ACP-EU Partnership Agreement signed on 23 June 2000 in Cotonou,

and whose trade provisions took effect from 1 August 2000, provides for the

negotiation of new WTO-compatible arrangements, which progressively remove

barriers to trade and enhance co-operation in all trade-related areas, to be

concluded and put into effect by the end of 2007. In the meantime, and in order

to facilitate the transition, the non-reciprocal trade preferences applied

under the 4th Lomé Convention have been maintained and are sanctioned by

a waiver obtained at Doha. The Cotonou preferences include duty-free access for

all industrial and a large part of agricultural and processed agricultural

products as well as preferential tariffs for almost all the remaining

agricultural products. The beef and veal and sugar protocols are also

maintained during the preparatory period but will be reviewed in the context of

the new trading arrangements.

The present regulation governing the EU scheme for Generalised trade

preferences, GSP, entered into force in 1 January 2002 and will cover

the period until the end of 2004. It is based on the guidelines the EU adopted

for the period 1995 to 2004. The EU GSP now covers virtually all sectors and

fully incorporates the new EBA initiative which was adopted in February 2001

and which grants duty free access to all products from LDCs. The tariff

modulation has been simplified with the establishment of two categories of

products/sensitivity. Procedures concerning graduation, withdrawal, safeguard

and the special incentive arrangements have been harmonised and clarified. The

preferential margins that were eroded as a result of progressive trade

liberalisation have been restored by reducing ad valorem duties on sensitive

products by a flat rate of 3,5 percentage points and specific duties by 30%.

The special incentive arrangements have been made more attractive by further

reducing ad valorem and specific duties by an additional 5 percentage points

and 30% respectively. Finally, the GSP’s role as a tool to foster sustainable

development has been reinforced, predictability has been enhanced by requiring

that graduation and exclusion only occur where the conditions are fulfilled

during three consecutive years.

In order to strengthen the political stabilisation and economic development of

the region, the EU introduced on 18 September 2000 (amended on 20 November 2000

and 18 December 2001) Autonomous Trade Measures (ATMs) in favour of the

countries of Western Balkans to be applied until 31 December 2005. Based on

a former rather liberal trade regime towards the Western Balkans, the ATMs

abolish the remaining tariff ceilings for practically all industrial products

with the exception of certain textile products and improve market access for

agricultural and fishery products. ATMs are the forerunner to the conclusion of

Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA), already concluded with the

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Croatia. Trade

provisions of the EU-FYROM SAA entered into force on 1 June 2001, those of the

EU-Croatia SAA on 1 January 2002 by means of an Interim Agreement. They aim at

creating a free trade area on goods over a transitional period of ten years for

FYROM and six years for Croatia and envisage a progressive and reciprocal

liberalisation of trade in services. They also set out obligations in areas

such as competition and state aid rules and intellectual and industrial

property rights. The three other Western Balkan countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Albania and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) which benefit from the ATMs are

eligible for such Agreements as soon as they meet the relevant political and

economic criteria.

Under the EC Treaty, since 1958, the Overseas Countries and Territories

(OCTs) are linked to the Community under a specific Association, the purpose of

which is to promote the economic and social development of these dependent

countries and territories, and to establish close economic relations between

them and the Community as a whole. In November 2001, the “Overseas Association

Decision” was amended to better contribute to these aims and to promote the

effective integration of the OCTs in the global economy, as well as developing

their trade in both goods and services vis-à-vis regional and world

markets. Therefore, in addition to confirming the free access to the EU already

provided for OCT goods, the decision seeks to step up liberalisation and

co-operation in services and trade-related areas over a ten-year period ending

on 31 December 2011.

Free trade areas

The EU has been linked to all ten Central and Eastern European countries

by Europe Agreements since 1999. As a result, industrial products are now in

free circulation between the signatories and the EU since the beginning of

2001. Restrictions remain in only a few sectors, such as agriculture. The

Europe Agreements also contain provisions regarding the free movement of

services, payments and capital in respect of trade and investments, free

movement of workers, and co-operation in the field of environment, transport

and customs. Furthermore, they provide for legislative approximation with EU

legislation, particularly in the areas relevant to the internal market, such as

competition and protection to intellectual, industrial and commercial property.

The Association Agreements with Cyprus and Malta cover similar fields.

The EU has established a Customs Union with Turkey covering industrial

products. Steel and coal products are in free circulation, whereas concessions

have been exchanged by both parties in trade in agricultural products. Further

negotiations started in 2000 to liberalise trade in services and public

procurement.

The EU’s bilateral trade relations with Switzerland are based on the

existing agreements: the free-trade agreement of 1972. Since 1994 the EU and

Switzerland have been involved in negotiations covering a wide range of

specific sectors. Seven new agreements in the sectors of free movement of

persons, air and land transport, scientific and technological co-operation,

agriculture, conformity assessment and public procurement will enter into force

in summer 2002. Since June 2001, negotiations have been underway in the

additional areas of statistics, environment, trade in processed agricultural

products and co-operation against fraud, while negotiations on the taxation of

savings are about to start. In April 2002 the European Commission decided to

propose the start of negotiations with Switzerland in four new areas, including

the establishment of an FTA on services.

The EU has concluded bilateral association agreements with 8 Mediterranean

countries. These agreements contain a political component, a trade

component, and a co-operation component. The agreements with Tunisia, Morocco

and Jordan have entered into force in March 1998, March 2000 and May 2002

respectively. The trade provisions of the agreements with the Palestinian

Authority (signed in February 1997) are being applied on an interim basis.

Concerning Israel, a new Euro-Med Association agreement entered into force on 1

June 2000. Agreements with Egypt and Algeria have been signed and need still to

be ratified. The agreement with Lebanon has been initialled and the parties

intend to implement the commercial part on the basis of an Interim agreement.

Negotiations are ongoing with Syria. The individual agreements foresee the

establishment of a free trade area between each country and the EU for goods

and progressive opening of the agricultural markets. In addition, they contain

provisions for liberalisation in the area of services, capital movement and

competition.

The negotiations between the EU and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States

of the Gulf (GCC) have also restarted in earnest since the GCC decided

to apply a common customs tariff at the latest in 2005 and the adjustment of

the original EU negotiating mandate, which dated from 1991.

The EU and Mexico Free Trade Agreement entered into force on 1 July

2000. The positive trade performances of both sides demonstrated the

potentialities of this agreement: the EU has inverted the tendency to lose

market share after the Mexico entry into NAFTA and Mexican products have found

new diversified market opportunities in the EU. To favour a better use of the

market access opportunities given by the progressive elimination of import

duties, parties are now enhancing regular cooperation on non-tariff barriers.

The FTA covers trade in goods to be fully completed for the most part by 2003

with limited longer transitional periods for Mexican industrial products until

2007 and for agricultural products until 2010. The FTA also covers services,

public procurement, competition and IPR.

Negotiations on an Association Agreement between the EU and Chile, which

started at a first round of negotiations in April 2000, were finalised on 26

April 2002. The agreement will include a political dialogue, a co-operation

pillar and a trade pillar. As for trade, apart from a free trade area in goods,

services and government procurement, the future agreement is to include

provisions regarding investment, customs and trade facilitation, intellectual

property rights, competition and a dispute settlement mechanism. The future

agreement is currently under internal adoption procedures.

Negotiations on an Interregional Association Agreement with Mercosur

started in April 2000. The future agreement is to include a political dialogue,

a co-operation pillar and a trade pillar. Negotiations are taking place on a

bi-regional basis from customs union to customs union. This reflects one of the

key objectives of the EU vis-a-vis Mercosur, notably the strengthening of the

Mercosur integration process. The second stage of negotiations where launched

in July 2001. By now, most text proposals on the different negotiating items

have been exchanged. In addition, both sides have exchanged their tariff

offers. The third stage of negotiations is currently being prepared.

Following the conclusion with South Africa of a Trade, Development and

Co-operation Agreement in 1999, agreements on trade in wine and spirits were

signed on 28 January 2002. They have been applied provisionally since then.

Negotiations on fisheries have yet to be concluded.

Regional initiatives

The EU’s trade relationship with Asia continues to be an important priority. The

Economic Pillar of the Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM), established in 1996,

links the EU and the 15 EU Member States with Japan, China, Korea, Thailand,

Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Brunei in a

dialogue process aimed at facilitating trade and improving investment between

all partners. The most recent Trade Facilitation Action Plan for defines a

number of objectives intended to reduce and eliminate barriers to trade in

areas such as standards and certification, customs, IPR, SPS, and electronic

commerce. In trade terms, the Asian ASEM partners accounted for approximately

26% of world exports in 2000 with the EU being their largest partner, and this

region is the EU’s own second most important destination for its imports.

The EU’s relationship with the San José group and the Andean

Community is based on two regional Framework Cooperation Agreements that

entered into force 1999 and 1998 respectively. Both regions benefit from the

EU’s GSP. The Madrid Summit in May 2002 agreed to new initiatives to negotiate

political and co-operation Agreements between the EU and the two regions

respectively, as well as to intensify bi-regional economic and trade

cooperation. The aim is to establish conditions under which, after the

completion of the DDA, bi-regional Free Trade Agreements between the EU and

each of the two regions could become feasible and mutually beneficial.

Other bilateral relations

Good trade relations between the EU and the United States have

traditionally constituted an important element in the overall management of the

trading system. During the period under review, close EU-US cooperation was

certainly instrumental in achieving a successful outcome at Doha. Bilateral

trade relations between the two biggest trade entities in the world have also

remained robust marked by the launch in 1995 of the New Transatlantic Agenda

(NTA) and by an agreement in 1998 on the Transatlantic Economic Partnership

(TEP). Through the establishment of this framework the parties reaffirmed their

shared commitment to strengthen the multilateral trading system and agreed to

aim at breaking down remaining –mostly regulatory — barriers to trade across

the Atlantic while preserving a high level of protection for health, safety,

consumers and the environment. This partnership produced substantial results in

particular on mutual recognition of certain technical regulations in the area

of goods, while negotiations are ongoing in the area of services (architects,

engineers, insurance). Moreover, in 2002, the European Commission and the US

federal authorities developed a set of Guidelines for Regulatory Co-operation

and Transparency and agreed to launch a Positive Economic Agenda designed to

expand this co-operative effort to other areas where mutually beneficial

arrangements can be found. The EU and the US also agreed in 1999 on a set of

principles to provide for an effective Early Warning System designed to prevent

a number of disputes from escalating by facilitating their resolution at an

early stage. However, some disputes remain and among these our two major

disagreements concern the US safeguard measures on steel and the lack of

progress by the US in complying with WTO rulings on Foreign Sales Corporations

(FSC/ETI). Both sides continue to seek ways to conclude an agreement on trade

in wines. Discussions on an agreement are also ongoing to replace the current

withdrawal of concessions in the ‘hormones’ case by compensation.

Trade relations with Canada are marked by the EU-Canada Joint

Declaration and Action Plan of December 1996. Furthermore, the EU and Canada

agreed to undertake the EU-Canada Trade Initiative (ECTI), which is a

comprehensive programme covering multilateral and bilateral trade areas. This

framework of co-operation bore early fruit with the conclusion of agreements on

Mutual Recognition of Conformity Assessment, Veterinary equivalence, Customs

co-operation and co-operation regarding competition matters. Negotiations

towards the conclusion of an agreement on trade in wines and spirits are

ongoing. In addition, Canada and the EU are currently engaged in an assessment

of future measures to enhance their trade and investment relationship. This

assessment would start with the examination of the results of an on-going

business survey on existing barriers to EU-Canada trade and investment.

Finally, the Canadian Government and the European Commission have recently

agreed to initiate a new regulatory co-operation dialogue.

The EU and Japan share a strong commitment to the Multilateral Trading

System. The close EU-Japan co-operation contributed to the adoption of the DDA.

The EU has put the emphasis of its bilateral economic dialogue on facilitating

market access for goods and services and improving the investment climate in

Japan through structural reform. A two-way deregulation dialogue was launched

in 1994 in the framework of which the EU and Japan exchange an annual list of

proposals for regulatory reform in their partner’s respective markets. On 1

January 2002 a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) entered into force which

permits acceptance of conformity assessment conducted in one party according to

the regulations of the other in four product areas.

This marks an important step in facilitating market access. On 8 December

2001, the EU-Japan Summit launched a decade of co-operation by adopting the

“EU-Japan Action Plan”, which includes the objective of strengthening the EU-

Japan economic and trade partnership.

Joint declarations on bilateral relations with Australia (1997) and with

New Zealand (1999) strengthen the dialogue for further liberalization of

trade in goods and services. Mutual Recognition Agreements in relation to

conformity assessments for goods have also been concluded with each of these

countries, and agreement was reached on a veterinary agreement with New

Zealand.

A strengthening of trade relations between China and the EU is happening

at both the multilateral and the bilateral level. The EU, which has been a keen

advocate of China’s accession to the WTO, has a three-fold strategy

vis-à-vis China: monitoring the implementation by China of her

commitments made in the context of her WTO accession; supporting this

implementation and China’s economic and trade reforms through partnership, in

particular by offering EU expertise through a range of co-operation programmes;

developing cooperation with China on the DDA and engaging constructively in the

new multilateral negotiations. Bilaterally, the EU is addressing trade issues

through its dialogue with China, the main forum for which are the EC-China

Joint Committee and its subordinate bodies.

The current relationship between Korea and the EU is founded on

increasingly shared political values, strong economic links, and support for

South Korea’s “sunshine” policy of engagement with the North. A notable sign of

the progress in EU relations with Korea was the entry into force, on 1 April

2001, of the Framework Agreement for Co-operation and Trade. This Agreement

commits both parties to work towards fostering growth of two-way trade and

investment, while providing a better framework for economic co-operation.

EU relations with Russia and other countries of the CIS are based on the

Partnership and Co-operation Agreements (PCAs) concluded over the last decade.

Preliminary discussions have taken place between the EU and Russia to explore

the concept of a “Common European Economic Space”, which the two sides launched

at the EU-Russia Summit in May 2001. The focus of this initiative is in the

regulatory field. Stable relations with Russia and with the other CIS countries

will remain critical for the EU, particularly as the next EU Enlargement will

bring a number of Central and Eastern European Countries into the Union. Trade

and economic issues will remain an important element of the EU’s overall

relationship with them. In addition, the EU has continued and will do so in the

future to work for the early accession to the WTO on appropriate terms of

Russia and other CIS countries that are not yet members, as this will promote

the closer integration of these countries into the global economy.

The EU and India continue to deepen their bilateral trade reflecting the

potential of the two sides, to strengthen their development and economic

cooperation and to improve the quality of the economic and trade links. Both

sides continue to engage in a close “High level Economic Dialogue” and its

sub-commissions where regular consultations on trade and others issues are

held. At the 28 June 2000 Summit both sides agreed to establish a regular high

level dialogue on WTO issues. The EU-India summit in autumn 2001 adopted the

“Joint Initiative on enhancing trade and investment” with key joint

recommendations.

Regarding EU-Pakistan relations, a number of actions have been prepared,

including the signature of a 3rd Generation Co-operation Agreement

in November 2001. A comprehensive package of trade preferences was agreed by

the Council. Measures include a quota increase of 15% for textiles and clothing

products and zero duty imports of clothing products under the GSP drug regime

for the period 2002-2004. In May 2002, the European Commission adopted a five

year strategy (2002-2006) for its cooperation with Pakistan. Priorities set in

this Country Strategy Paper include the development of trade.

Страницы: 1, 2