Brussels, 21/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - Peter Mandelson attended the European Parliament's international trade committee, chaired by Helmut Markov (GUE/NGL, Germany) on Tuesday 20 November, to provide it with an update on several trade policy dossiers. He was also keen to, “correct some of the misapprehensions that have grown” over recent weeks in the dossier for revising the EU's Trade Defence Instruments (TDI). The Commissioner for trade also warned that in the face of pressure from certain capitals and colleagues at the Commission, he was giving himself an additional deadline before submitting his proposals for reforming Regulation 384/96/EC, and his guidelines for clarifying and redefining factors that ought to be taken into account in trade defence cases. According to his spokesperson, Peter Power, Commissioner Mandelson will not present his package of proposals on 5 December but is likely to present it in January 2008.
The Commissioner provided an explanation on this point, “I have always said that effective trade defence instruments are the necessary complement to our openness to international trade. They are our guarantee of fair trade. I have never suggested that I want to see our ability to tackle unfair trade weakened. I have explicitly said I want to make our trade defence instruments stronger by making them more accessible, more transparent and by basing them on clear consensus among Europeans and their governments on how and when they should be used”. He pointed out that recent experience proved that consensus is “uncertain”. Mr Mandelson affirmed that responses to public consultation launched in the follow-up to the December 2006 Green Paper demonstrated that the trade defence system is “necessary” and, for the most part, “sound, durable and effective” but also asserted that they 'should consider improving the system”. Mr Mandelson promised that, “There are a number of areas where it is broadly agreed that the trade defence system could be more transparent, efficient and accessible, especially for small businesses. We will propose useful changes to do that”, adding, “it is clear that there are many areas where there is no consensus for change and here the Commission has already said - and I repeat today - that it will not make proposals. But the Commission's consultation and its experience have both made clear that there is a small number of areas where there is sharp debate and where we need to build a clearer common understanding of how we should use our trade defence instruments in changing circumstances. Resolving as much as we can that debate will help us to restore a broad consensus, and we should not be rushed in that debate”.
The Commissioner highlighted three questions: whether companies that have outsourced part of their production while keeping significant production and interests in Europe, “should be disqualified from 'European producer' status”; that of, “the range of economic issues to be taken into consideration in the community interest test and how we weight them”; and whether we should set out more clearly, “based on past precedent, the criteria by which we may vary the duration of trade defence duties” (compensatory: Ed). For each other issues, Mandelson's approach is not one of “radical change, but clarity. Codification.”. He explained that, “The commission is not seeking to overturn the current system or hijack the process of TDI. It is not seeking to redefine trade defence practice in the EU, but to clarify it. The problem is that in all of these questions current EU law is imprecise or unclear. In all of them there are precedents in practice, but no clear legal basis for our actions and no generally agreed guidelines to govern our practice. I believe that the best way to bring more stability to the system is to draw up those guidelines”. On the question of Community production, Mr Mandelson added, “the goal is not to reward or encourage outsourcing, and certainly not to tip the balance in favour of companies that choose to produce outside of Europe. Our trade defence system will never reward companies who choose to move their production out of Europe entirely or who are themselves producing dumped imports. But the economic reality is that many European companies create global supply chains alongside their European production and alongside their European interests. They do this to stay competitive - often to stay in business and to maintain employment in Europe. I believe that the system should be able to reflect their interests in a fair and transparent way without over-compensating for them”. On the question of Community interest, “the goal is the same: to set out much more clearly than at present, the considerations that should be taken into account in determining the balance of different economic interests in Europe. I do not want to change the presumption that already exists in EU law that removing international competitive distortions that result in injurious dumping is in the European interest. But we could be more systematic in setting out the additional interests that will weigh alongside this primary objective when we reach a judgement on whether the economic costs of action are disproportionate to the benefits”. In the knowledge that this dossier is very politically sensitive, Mr Mandelson decided to present both guidelines and his proposals for reform of Regulation 384/96/EC. This might have some “practical consequences”: the Commission will need more time to pursue its consultations and resubmit its proposals. The Commissioner concluded, however, that the, “result will be a package that is completely transparent, and remove any ambiguity about the Commission's intentions. I hope that that will provide the basis for a more informed and positive debate”. (E.H.)