Brussels, 15/01/2008 (Agence Europe) - In a declaration sent out on Monday 14 January by his services, Peter Mandelson explained the reasons behind his indefinite postponement to the reform proposals for his EU trade defence mechanism (EUROPE 9579): lack of consensus among member states. The Commissioner for trade explained that “in 2006, we (Ed: the European Commission and the Council) agreed on the need for a review of Europe's trade defence instruments (TDIs). The intention of this review was to ensure that Europe's vital means of defending itself against unfair trade continue to work as effectively as possible, especially taking into account the rapid changes in the global economy. Effective trade defence instruments remain vital for defending European businesses and workers against the damage that can be caused by unfair trade. In a global economy, where many European businesses operate global supply chains, and in which consumer choice is growing, the mix of economic interests is more complex”. Following the public consultation of the stakeholders, launched in December 2006, the Commissioner worked on “a set of proposals for adjustments to the EU's trade defence rules that offer real improvements in accessibility, transparency, sped and clarity for businesses”, the commissioner added, highlighting examples such as “greater access to documents, greater assistance for small businesses using the trade defence system and faster provisional measures”. Mr Mandelson affirmed that “we have also proposed that we should clarify, through the drafting of guidelines, the application of EU rules in two important areas. First, the considerations for determining what degree of production outside of Europe disqualifies a company from being treated as 'European'. Second, the considerations that should be used in the 'community interest test', which allows us to judge whether trade defence action is in the wider economic interest of the EU. Our intentions in both these areas is largely to codify existing practice, which would create clarity and predictability for businesses, and ease decision-making in contentious cases”. Mandelson believes that his proposals are “balanced” because they “reflect a middle ground of the debate among all interested parties, and do not undermine our strong commitment to tackle unfair trade” or, “weaken our ability to tackle unfair trade…However, it is clear from consultation that this issue (Ed: TDI) is politically sensitive and continues to attract vigorous debate and some disagreement among governments and economic operators”. The commissioner does, regrettably acknowledge that the “political environment is not easy”. Although he says that he understands that “at a time when we are pressing partners like China to trade fairly we must not risk even the perception that the EU may lower its guard on trade defence”, the Commissioner for trade provides assurances, however, that as part of the Doha Round, the EU is committed to negotiating multilateral antidumping rules that are easier to apply under WTO rules. Commissioner Mandelson concludes that their objective has been to “strengthen consensus on the operation of these instruments, in order to make them more workable. Such a consensus does not yet exist. It will take more time to build consensus on the draft proposals. We cannot force people to reach agreement; and we do not want to entrench disagreement. The problems of taking decisions in some TDI cases will of course continue to arise in the absence of reform”. The commissioner promised that “We will continue to consult and learn from experience of cases before use, so that proposals can be brought forward in due course”. (E.H.)