Summary record of the meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA), Brussels, 25 - 26 April 2012 - Montesquieu Instituut

 

-

COUNCIL OFBrussels, 27 April 2012

THE EUROPEAN UNION

9463/12 -

PE 188 RELEX 398 COMER 92 -

NOTE

from:

General Secretariat of the Council

to: Delegations

Subject: Summary record of the meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA), Brussels, 25 - 26 April 2012

1. State of play of ongoing trilogue negotiations

INTA/7/04325

Exchange of views

The Chair, Mr MOREIRA (S&D), informed the Committee that as regards the proposal on

2. Monitoring Group activities

INTA/7/08162

Exchange of views -

Members responsible for the different regional groups reported on their activities, which

included, among other initiatives, contact with the Commission on the Japan scoping exercise,

on the possible reopening of negotiations with Ecuador and Bolivia and meetings with the

chief negotiators for the EU-Canada Agreement. In particular, the additional difficulties for

Mercosur negotiations were mentioned in the context of Argentina's trade behaviour. It was,

however, considered that it was first up to the Mercosur Presidency (Brazil) to establish an

internal position.

3. Joint debate

-

Agreement establishing an Association between the EU and its Member States, on -

the one hand, and Central America on the other

INTA/7/07838 2011/0303(NLE) COM(2011)0679 -

Second exchange of views -

Implementation of the bilateral safeguard clause and the stabilisation mechanism for bananas of the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America

INTA/7/07318

2011/0263(COD) COM(2011)0599 C7-0306/2011

Consideration of amendments -

In the absence of the rapporteur, Mr ZALBA (EPP), Ms CORREA (EPP) emphasised the

importance of the agreement, saying it was well balanced. She insisted that commitments on

Ms Mc CLARKIN (ECR) welcomed the Agreement, which went beyond WTO commitments

and which would foster political dialogue. She said she broadly agreed with the banana

safeguard clause but called for the interests of producers in the outermost regions to be

defended. Ms ANDRES BAREA (S&D) referred to the same interests and proposed a

mechanism that would automatically trigger consultation with a view to suspension when

certain volumes of import were exceeded.

The representatives of the Commission argued that the safeguard clause was in line with the

actual Agreement and could not provide for mechanisms or definitions which had not been

agreed upon between the parties or which were even conflicting with the specific WTO rules

on banana trade. They also considered that some of the amendments would impose a heavy

burden both on the Commission and business since the requested reporting data were not

freely available.

The Chair announced that since for the Agreement INTA was associated Committee for

AFET, it was up to that Committee to establish the further calendar for proceedings.

4. Implementation of the bilateral safeguard clause and the stabilisation mechanism for -

bananas of the Trade Agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru

INTA/7/07320 2011/0262(COD) COM(2011)0600 C7-0307/2011 -

Consideration of amendments -

The rapporteur, Mr LANGE, said that the 14 amendments focused on four issues, i.e.

The representatives of the Commission explained that once the conditions for launching an

investigation has been met, concrete data collection with interested parties had started and a

decision to take measures would depend on the results. They further repeated their objections

to certain amendments, which were similar to those expressed in the previous debate, and said

that as regards outermost regions specific measures were foreseen not only in the Agreements

but also in the CAP.

Mr LANGE concluded that since the Agreement itself had not yet been notified to the

European Parliament, it was difficult to predict volumes that could apply on the date of entry

into force. Nor was the safeguard mechanism described in detail, which could lead to some

possibilities for interpretation.

Vote in INTA: 29-30 May 2012.

5. Trade Agreement between the EU of the one part and Colombia and Peru of the -

other part

INTA/7/06949 2011/0249(NLE) COM(2011)0569

Second exchange of views -

Although the Council had not sent the Agreement for formal consultation to the European

Parliament, the rapporteur, Mr DAVID (EPP), agreed to a proposal from S&D to table an oral

question to the Commission which would be followed up by a resolution which would mainly

Mr LANGE said that the Oral Question to the Commission should clarify some issues and

strengthen some weaknesses. Trade was not an end in itself, but should improve living

conditions and prosperity in partner countries. He advocated a strengthening of the monitoring

and dispute settlement mechanisms for breaches of human rights and sustainable development

and the involvement of civil society in the implementation process. Like Mr SCHOLZ (GUE)

and Ms ANDRIKIENE, Mr KAZAK (ALDE) supported the comments of the previous

speaker, the latter seeking agreement on an action plan for human rights which should start

even before the entry into force of the Agreement.

The representative of the Commission shared members' concerns on human rights but

considered that the Agreement would be an additional tool to commit to further improving the

situation. He informed the Committee that, unlike a more detailed mechanism, the broad

suspension clause would enable more flexibility in the interpretation of infringements. He

confirmed that the chapter on sustainable development was binding and that even a specific

arbitration mechanism had been established and it was more efficient in this area than general

dispute settlement.

Consideration of the report: 29 May 2012

Vote in INTA: July 2012

Vote in plenary: September 2012

6. Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

7. Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities

INTA/7/09053 2012/2042(INI) COM(2011)0642 -

Consideration of draft opinion

The rapporteur, Mr WINKLER (EPP), recommended that the particularities of each SME be

recognised in function of its size, sector, location etc. He said that subsidiarity was very

important and that synergies of existing mechanisms should be looked at instead of creating

new instruments. Cooperation of SMEs in third countries should be welcomed and EU policy

initiatives for the operation of SMEs in such countries were to be increased.

The mapping of existing mechanisms should preferably lead to commitments from Member

States to harmonise their initiatives. A balanced approach should guarantee that not only

SMEs which were already operating in other markets were supported, high attention should

be given to working capital, more should be done for the participation of SMEs in public

procurement, and the priority markets list should focus on the Western Balkans and Eastern

Partnership.

Mr SUSTA (S&D) considered the draft opinion to be well prepared, expressed his support for

a review of the Small Business Act and for geographical prioritisation, and emphasised the

importance of Member States in a global SME strategy. Mr DARTMOUTH (EFD) was

concerned that certain initiatives would prove to be a Trojan horse for further EU integration

and warned against increasing red tape and costs which would offset Member States' efforts.

Ms ANDRIKIENE and Mr ZAHRADIL welcomed the text but the latter also said that good

The representative of the Commission confirmed that the intention was not to create new

instruments or institutions but to signpost existing schemes. He explained that SMEs were

more inclined to operate in neighbouring markets instead of going to the US or China. He also

considered that some legislative initiatives would meet reluctance from Member States and

that under the new MFF financial help to SMEs would increase.

Deadline for amendments: 10 May 2012

8. Trade aspects of the Eastern partnership

INTA/7/08037 2011/2306(INI)

Consideration of amendments -

No fewer then 142 amendments had been tabled, many of which both the Chair and the

rapporteur, Mr RANSDORF, regarded as going beyond the competences of INTA.

The rapporteur announced the preparation of compromise amendments and a meeting with the

shadow rapporteurs for discussion.

Mr ZALEWSKI (EPP) argued that the Eastern Partnership had been built on political

grounds. He said that association and trade agreements were a reward for further

democratisation and application of the rule of law and he considered that consequently

amendments could also be of a political nature. Mr CUTAS (S&D) noted that many

amendments were not on substance and that other reports (i.e. the one on Columbia) also

referred to political issues such as respect for human rights. Those views were shared by Mr

9. Joint debate:

-

EU-Russia agreement on trade in parts and components of motor vehicles

INTA/7/07922 2011/0324(NLE) 16806/2011 C7-0517/2011 -

Consideration of draft recommendation (consent) -

EU-Russia Agreement regarding the preservation of commitments on trade in -

services contained in the current EU-Russia Partnership and Co-operation -

Agreement

INTA/7/08000 2011/0328(NLE) 16815/2011 C7-0522/2011 -

Consideration of draft recommendation (consent) -

EU-Russia Agreement regarding the introduction or increase by the Russian -

Federation of export duties on raw materials

INTA/7/07966 2011/0332(NLE) 16827/2011 C7-0520/2011 -

Consideration of draft recommendation (consent) -

EU-Russia Agreement on the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to -

exports of wood and EU-Russia Protocol on technical modalities pursuant to that -

Agreement

INTA/7/07968 2011/0322(NLE) 16775/2011 C7-0515/2011

Consideration of draft recommendation (consent)

-

Presentation of the study "Russia's Accession to the WTO and its implications for -

the EU-Russia Economic Relations" -

(postponed) -

The respective rapporteurs briefly presented again the main features of the agreements aimed

at protecting EU interests after the accession of Russia to WTO. All proposed giving consent

to the agreements.

Replying to comments from the rapporteurs and from Mr LANGE, the Deputy Director

• 10. 

  Joint debate

-

Award of concession contracts

INTA/7/08528 2011/0437(COD) COM(2011)0897 C7-0004/2012

First exchange of views -

Public procurement

INTA/7/08514 2011/0438(COD) COM(2011)0896 C7-0006/2012

First exchange of views -

Procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal -

services sectors

INTA/7/08502 2011/0439(COD) COM(2011)0895 C7-0007/2012

First exchange of views -

Mr SUSTA, rapporteur for all three proposals, stressed the importance for EU industry to

have access to open public procurement markets, he welcomed the WTO initiative in this

respect and advocated reciprocal treatment while warning against protectionist measures.

He expressed his concerns as regards the award of contracts for local public services, stating

that they should not be awarded on the basis of the lowest cost but should set a range of

criteria respecting social conditions and reasonable thresholds as safeguards for the EU's

social model.

In subsequent interventions, Members such as Mr WALESA (EPP), Ms Mc CLARKIN, Mr

LANGE and Mr JADOT raised the issues of transparency, the need for a coherent approach to

promote EU values, support for SMEs, simplification of legislation, adaptation of procedures

Debate on the draft opinions: 21 June 2012

Vote in INTA: September 2012

• 11. 

  Amendment to Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 as regards the

exclusion of a number of countries from the list of regions or states which have -

concluded negotiations

INTA/7/07312 2011/0260(COD) COM(2011)0598 C7-0305/2011

Consideration of draft report

The rapporteur, Mr MARTIN, briefly recalled the history of the proposal in the context of the

former Cotonou agreement and EPA negotiations. Although there was a need to terminate the

Market Access Regulation in order to avoid WTO sanctions, he proposed deferring

termination until 1 January 2016 instead of 1 January 2014 as proposed by the Commission.

This would enable more ACP countries to negotiate their EPA. In particular Botswana and

Namibia, which had a difficult relationship with South Africa, would be hit by termination.

Mr FJELLNER and Mr STURDY argued that negotiations for an EPA had already been

ongoing since 2001, that there was no reason to believe that an additional period of two years

would change the situation significantly, that countries which quickly engaged in EPS should

not be disadvantaged, which is why they agreed with the Commission proposal. The Chair

considered the current situation unfair to certain countries which were not ACP countries but

which were at the same level of development and called for an end to this situation in one or

two years. -

She argued that as early as 1999, ACP countries claimed a real partnership and the initial

deadline for EPAs was 2007, and since then the WTO had been closely observing EU follow-

up. She said that the conclusion of agreements which were not satisfactory to either one side

or the other was not in the interest of the EU, and that no unfair treatment should be created

by granting the same rights to countries which had signed and those which had not signed an

EPA.

Deadline for amendments: 8 May 2012

Vote in INTA: 20 June

Vote in plenary: September 2012

• 12. 

  Delegation to Eastern Africa, 19-23 March 2012

INTA/7/07431

Presentation of mission report -

The Chair only referred to the written document.

• 13. 

  Officially supported export credits

INTA/7/02420

Exchange of views on implementation

The rapporteur, Mr JADOT, recalled the codecision agreement between the European

Parliament and the Council in 2011 on " Application of certain guidelines in the field of

officially supported export credits", the implementation of which did not now seem to comply

A representative of the Presidency confirmed receipt of the letter and undertook to address the

issue when problems occurred.

• 14. 

  Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States,

Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA

INTA/7/06356 2011/0167(NLE) 12195/2011 C7-0027/2012 -

Consideration of draft recommendation (consent) -

The rapporteur, Mr MARTIN, fully agreed on the need to protect Intellectual Property Rights

(IPR) but said that after exhaustive consultations, he had decided not to recommend giving

consent to the Agreement. He considered that ACTA was mixing up physical and digital

goods which were comparable but not identical, that the Agreement lacked precision (e.g.

what is " commercial scale"?), that the obligations on internet service providers (ISP) were

already available under court proceedings but should not be generalised and that the limited

participation in the agreement (excluding China and Russia) would make it difficult to extend

it later.

In the subsequent debate EPP speakers (Mr FJELLNER, Mr CASPARY, Mr ZALEWSKI, Mr

BUSITILL (for LIBE)) called upon Members not to reject the agreement immediately but

proposed to adress its shortcomings under a procedure similar to that used for the EU-US

PNR Agreement.

On behalf of ALDE, Mr RINALDI informed the Committee that his group, although

For the Greens Ms ANDERSDOTTER welcomed the rapporteur's proposal to reject the

agreement. She favoured exploring new ways to protect IPR without jeopardising citizens'

rights.

Interventions from S&D (Mr LANGE, Mr ATTARD-MONTALTO) called for IPR issues to

be dealt with first inside the EU before concluding international agreements and countered Mr

FJELLNER's argument that even with a limited country participation 50% of world trade was

covered by saying that by far the largest proportion of counterfeiting and piracy occurred in

the other 50% of world trade from countries not participating in the agreement.

The Chair asked whether it was legally possible to hold a vote while the agreement was under

consideration by the ECJ and whether in the event of rejection the other contracting parties

would go on without the EU or would be willing to renegotiate.

Mr AGUIA MACHADO, Deputy Director-General from DG TRADE, made a lengthy speech

arguing inter alia that ACTA was not changing the substance of IPR but was only a

enforcement tool, that the EU would continue to apply and interpret existing EU law without

any interference from other contracting states, and that ACTA would not restrict trade in

generic medicines. He also stressed that there would be no control on e-mails or shared

activities, that there was no dispute settlement mechanism since contracting parties were

responsible for interpretation themselves, that it was up to the ECJ to judge if any

fundamental rights were under threat, that the criminalisation of certain infringements was

The rapporteur said he was somewhat puzzled by the debates since his offer to consult the

ECJ and to draft an interim report had been rejected by the Committee and now some political

groups sought more time to look into the detail. He considered that if there was a rejection by

the European Parliament, the Commission would be more inclined to negotiate as it did with

the EU-US PNR Agreement.

Deadline for amendments: 8 May 2012

Vote in INTA: 21 June 2012 (voting was delayed since the opinions of certain other

committees were still under preparation)

• 15. 

  2013 Budget - Mandate for Trilogue

INTA/7/08812 2012/2016(BUD)

Consideration of draft opinion

The rapporteur, Mr STASTNY, briefly recalled the procedure which should allow INTA to

signal its priorities for the 2013 budget. In his view, these included inter alia trade support for

SMEs, development of partnerships and adequate funding of trade policy.

Mr LANGE said that the 2013 budget would mostly consist of payments which excluded

many new projects. It was therefore important to keep what was in this year.

The representative of the Commission confirmed the transitional nature of the 2013 budget,

which was the last one under the current MFF. He considered the 2013 budget to be balanced,

• 16. 

  State of Play on WTO accessions

INTA/7/05941

Presentation by the Commission

The representative of the Commission delivered an exhaustive overview of WTO accession

progress in 2011 which included Russia and Montenegro and the 2012 priorities which

consisted of Kazakhstan, Serbia, Laos and Yemen. He informed the Committee that the EU

was fully involved in the new guidelines for Least Developed Countries, which would enable

their smooth accession without, however, making it automatic.

Replying to questions from Mr LANGE and the Chair, he considered that the enlargement of

the WTO offered opportunities and that new Members could not be held accountable for the

lack of progress in the Doha round. However, Russia's accession could have an impact on the

position of the BRIC countries and Russia would probably be a heavy offensive or defensive

user of dispute settlement mechanisms. On Ukraine he informed the Committee that this

country had made many concessions to become a Member and that this probably explained its

difficult position in new accession negotiations. However, bilateral and multilateral pressure

against its behaviour in the WTO was growing.

• 17. 

  Exchange of views with Kojiro Shiojiri, Ambassador of Japan to the European Union

The Ambassador emphasised the importance of the EU-Japan relationship not only in world

trade but also in the rebuilding of Japan after the earthquake and with the European sovereign

The representative of the Commission confirmed that the scoping exercise was in its last

phase but that it was difficult to predict a definite date for finalisation since the elimination of

a critical mass of non-tariff barriers was still awaited from Japan. In this respect he considered

content to be more important then timing.

Commissioner DE GUCHT added that the EU was committed to securing an agreement but

that some pending issues on non-tariff barriers needed to be resolved. Although the Japanese

proposals were considered a major step forward, they also needed to deliver.

The Japanese Ambassador reconfirmed his government's determination to conclude an

agreement with a large scope and high level of ambition which would be beneficial for both

sides.

• 18. 

  Exchange of views with Karel De Gucht, Commissioner for Trade, on the Commission

Work Programme for 2012 and 2013 (structured dialogue) -

The Commissioner delivered an exhaustive state-of-play on ongoing and forthcoming

negotiations (Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Canada, EPA, China), and reported briefly on

the procurement initiative, WTO accessions and investment policy. He announced a review of

trade defence instruments in 2013 after public consultation.

Replying to questions from Members he said inter alia that the idea of the EU only

concentrating on bilateral agreements was wrong but that multilateral instruments could not

Reacting to comments by the Chair, Commissioner DE GUCHT concluded that the European

Parliament could indeed vote on ACTA while it was subject to ECJ scrutiny but questioned

why it should do so. He was confident that the ECJ would deliver a positive opinion even

after the position adopted by the European Data Protection Supervisor, which the

Commissioner considered to be a mistake. He suggested that the European Parliament

postpone its vote until the outcome of ECJ deliberations and prepare an interim report. In the

meantime, substantive loopholes in EU legislation could be tackled.

• 19. 

  Exchange of views with Karel De Gucht, Commissioner for Trade, on recent

developments in trade policy -

"in camera "

• 20. 

  Votes:

The following acts were adopted with amendments:

General provisions for macro-financial assistance to third countries

INTA/7/06475 2011/0176(COD) COM(2011)0396 C7-0187/2011

Report -

Following this vote, the rapporteur, Mr KAZAK, proposed to vote a decision to mandate a

delegation to negotiate with the Council on an agreement at first reading.

This proposal was opposed by the Chair who preferred to wait for a vote on amendments in

The Committee also adopted a decision to mandate a delegation to negotiate on an agreement on

first reading on "Exceptional Trade Preferences for Pakistan" now that the WTO had agreed to

the waiver.

Likewise, an oral question to the Commission on the Trade Agreement between the EU of the

one part and Colombia and Peru of the other part, was adopted.

• 21. 

  Date, time and place of next meeting:

·

· 29 May 2012, 9.00 12.30 and 15.00 18.30 (Brussels)

30 May 2012, 9.00 12.30 (Brussels) -

_______________