Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-208"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.11.2-208"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I shall reply to the various points raised by Mrs Lucas. Regarding the problems of tariff escalation, inasmuch as we are increasing the preference margin, we are reducing, by that amount, the difference caused by tariff escalation. However, and on this point I am absolutely clear, we are not changing the tariff-escalation system to any great extent. There will still be a zero rate for certain products. Tariff escalation comes into play, but its impact is reduced by the preference margin that we are offering.
As for the generalised system of preferences, from the point of view of its providing an incentive for social and environmental performance, the Commission thought it would be useful to go further, in other words to double the preference already granted, because it shares what I think is the view implied by your question, i.e. that at the moment the scheme has not given rise to many specific projects.
As far as social matters are concerned, in our proposal we have introduced an innovation, to the extent that we now refer to the International Labour Organisation as regards what amounts, to some extent, to the certification of the advantages that we are granting. This is an innovation which I would draw to your attention and which has the double effect of making the diagnosis more objective, if I can use that word, and also of giving the ILO a greater profile in this international social governance which is, as you know, one of our objectives.
On the subject of drugs we have also been innovative, because we have made provision, in the countries which benefit from the GSP, for ‘drug-specific’ monitoring in relation to social conditions and also in relation to environmental conditions. In the case of social conditions, this takes place with reference to the ILO framework conventions, and in the case of environmental conditions it takes place in the context of tropical rainforest management, which more or less coincides geographically with the region in question. Therefore, from this point of view, conditionality via monitoring is increased, and I believe that I was attempting, in this proposal, to bear in mind, as you are doing, certain specific cases in which what was happening on the ground in relation to social rights did not necessarily comply with the spirit of the agreements between the Union and the countries in question.
To come to your last point, as far as preferences are concerned, whether for social performance or environmental performance, have we any alternative? As you know, we took a decision of principle, to the effect that, when taking into consideration social and environmental questions, we should not come down too heavily on the side of sanctions, but opt instead for incentives. We are therefore increasing the incentive here. We are making it clearer and more objective, with reference to a certain number of standards, but we are not coming down on the sanctions side. What we already have in unilateral and bilateral form, where we have greater room to manœuvre, must be translated into multilateral form, though probably in a more diluted form, in the multilateral negotiations in preparation for the Doha round, and you know what the Union’s mandate is there. In view of the fact that the WTO is a multilateral institution, we are obliged to make certain compromises in WTO negotiations which we do not necessarily have to make in bilateral negotiations and which we do not have to make at all when it comes to unilateral measures.
Finally, on the problem of human rights violations, we are dealing with this on the basis of the specific ILO conventions, and in particular the convention on forced labour and slavery. This proposal includes temporary withdrawal in the case of slavery or forced labour. This was already included in the previous proposal. We are now adding to it violations of the fundamental social standards covered by the five ILO basic conventions, so on this point we have to some extent added to what was already included and was also, as you know, applied in the case of Burma."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples