Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.8.2-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, thank you for inviting me to address Parliament on the subject of the generalised system of preferences and its reform.
Then there are proposals that affect the eligibility of specific countries. The committee proposes a specific clause for El Salvador. This would imply granting GSP+ to a country that has not ratified a maximum of two ILO Conventions due to constitutional constraints, but undertakes to ratify and implement them as quickly as possible.
I think you will agree that any ad hoc clause which downgrades two ILO Conventions runs counter to the EU policy of promoting core labour standards. On 4 March this year the Council adopted its conclusions on the social dimension of globalisation, which ‘recall its commitment to promote core labour standards and note the importance of the revision of the GSP in this context’. Furthermore, up to now, El Salvador has not shown any movement towards the ratification and implementation of the two missing ILO Conventions – on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
The committee also recommends a revised definition of the GSP+ vulnerability criterion, which would make Pakistan eligible. Let me remind Members of this House of some of the history of this. In the wake of 9/11 we decided to grant the benefits of the GSP drug regime to Pakistan. Following the WTO panel launched by India against the GSP drug regime, additional tariff preferences can only be granted to countries facing specific trade, financial, or development needs. Accordingly, the selection of GSP+ beneficiaries is to be based on clear, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. Any specific clause for Pakistan would represent a
discrimination. It would therefore make us vulnerable to challenge and I do not want to risk triggering another WTO case against the new GSP scheme that would not only affect Pakistan, but every other developing country that was a beneficiary of GSP+.
We should also bear in mind that Pakistan is one of the largest GSP beneficiaries, whereas GSP+ is targeted at the most vulnerable countries, in particular the smallest ones which represent less than 1% of GSP-covered trade flows. But I would like to stress that Pakistan will not be disadvantaged. It will enjoy favourable treatment in the new scheme, as it will benefit from reduced duties for all its exports to the EU market.
In conclusion, I believe that the new GSP scheme opens good market access opportunities for developing countries. It is simpler, it is more predictable and covers a broader range of products. By ensuring its WTO compatibility, it will provide legal security to our trading partners and on that basis I commend it to this House.
The GSP is a key instrument to put trade at the service of development by helping stimulate developing country exports to the European Union. The current system will be improved in four principal ways. First, the GSP will be simplified. Second, the product coverage will be expanded. Third, the benefits will be focused on those developing countries that are most in need. Fourth, additional GSP benefits – GSP+ – will be available for the first time to those countries that encourage sustainable development.
The new GSP scheme is simpler to comprehend. It comes in only three forms: the general arrangement; everything but arms for less-developed countries, which remains unchanged; and a new special arrangement to promote sustainable development and good governance. The graduation process will be clearer, simpler and fairer. Graduation – the exclusion of competitive products from GSP benefits – will not be applied annually any more, but over the three-and-a-half year period of the regulation. This will bring greater stability and much more predictability. The new GSP scheme is a clear example of an integrated approach to trade policy and sustainable development and I am sure will be welcomed by Members here for that reason. The new incentive for sustainable development and governance will support our commitment to core human and labour rights and environmental protection in the framework of our existing trade policy.
The reformed GSP will be a more effective tool to foster export diversification and economic growth for countries most in need: for example, vulnerable countries like Honduras; poorly diversified economies like Georgia; small islands like Sri Lanka; and landlocked countries like Mongolia. My aim is to get this simpler, better scheme into force more rapidly.
Following the tsunami, the Commission has been keen to act quickly to provide relief for the countries affected in the Indian Ocean. The new GSP will provide better access for some of the countries worst affected by the tsunami, and we want to accelerate its entry into force on 1 April. The countries that bore the brunt of the tsunami disaster will benefit most from the new scheme. Sri Lanka will receive duty-free access to the EU for almost all its exports, including vital textile and clothing exports. India, Indonesia and Thailand will benefit from reduced duties and wider product coverage, especially on crucial seafood exports.
In parallel, the Commission is working on simplifying and, where appropriate, relaxing the rules of origin in order to make GSP preferences provide the poorest with more benefit. The Commission will complete the revision of the GSP rules of origin as soon as possible.
Let me turn to the amendments proposed by Parliament. Overall, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Sánchez Presedo, and the Committee on International Trade, for the excellent work done in a tight timeframe. I welcome the fact that the conclusions in the report adopted by that committee on 22 February are broadly supportive of the Commission proposal. More specifically, the committee has highlighted the need for an evaluation of the functioning and impact of the current GSP scheme. The Commission is currently working on an impact assessment of the GSP on beneficiary countries during the five-year period from 1999 to 2003 and we should deliver a final report to Parliament by the end of the summer. Furthermore, I am also ready to report to the European Parliament annually on the impact assessment of the new GSP.
Let me turn to some detailed points. The Commission is ready to accept Amendment 47, tabled by the Committee on International Trade, according to which ‘the Commission shall, in close cooperation with Member States, monitor the imports of [some sensitive tuna] products’.
However, I am not persuaded by the committee’s proposal to lower the graduation threshold for textiles and clothing products. This would exclude India from the GSP for those products. India is one of the countries that bore the brunt of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster and where 300 million people still live on a dollar a day or less. The time and circumstances are not right to make this change, as it would adversely affect India. In this context, therefore, a decision such as this does not seem justified. Member States are divided on the issue: some wish to decrease this threshold, others support a higher one. The Commission proposal for a 12.5% threshold is a fair compromise between these two positions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Mandelson,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples