Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα WTO. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα WTO. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Σάββατο 2 Ιουνίου 2018
Ο Καναδάς προσέφυγε στον ΠΟΕ για τους δασμούς των ΗΠΑ - Δηλώνει ότι θα συνεργαστεί με την ΕΕ
Πέμπτη 7 Αυγούστου 2014
WTO Appellate Body rules against Chinese restrictions on access to rare earths and other raw materials (E.C.)
European Commission, Press release, Brussels, 7 August 2014:
The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) today ruled in the EU’s favour. It confirmed the findings made by a Panel in March 2014 that China’s export restrictions on rare earth, as well as tungsten and molybdenum, are in breach of WTO rules. Backing the claims of the EU and its co-complainants, the US and Japan, the WTO found that China’s export duties and quotas were not justified for reasons of environmental protection or conservation policy.
EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht qualified the ruling as “another milestone in the EU’s efforts to ensure fair access to much-needed raw materials for its industries”. “This ruling sends a clear signal that export restrictions cannot be used to protect or promote domestic industries at the expense of foreign competitors. I now look forward to China swiftly bringing its export regime in line with international rules, as it did with other raw materials under the previous WTO ruling,” Commissioner said.
In 2012, China lost another WTO case, brought jointly by the EU, US and Mexico, on export restrictions on raw materials. It subsequently lifted those restrictions. However, it did not lift similar measures, export quotas and duties, applying to other raw materials, such as tungsten, molybdenum and rare earths. The EU and its co-complainants were therefore left with no option but to use the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism again.
China has argued that its export restrictions on rare earths are part of its conservation policy. But the WTO’s position today is clear: export restrictions cannot be imposed to conserve exhaustible natural resources if the domestic production or consumption of the same raw materials is not restricted at the same time for the same purpose.
Neither the complainants nor the panel contest China’s right to put in place conservation policies. However, as the WTO clarified, the sovereign right of a country over its natural resources does not allow it to control international markets or the global distribution of raw materials. A WTO Member may decide on the level or pace at which it uses its resources but once raw materials have been extracted, they are subject to WTO trade rules. The extracting country cannot impose restrictions only on foreign users.
Background
The raw materials involved in this case are several rare earths, as well as tungsten and molybdenum. They have a wide range of uses in hi-tech and green goods, automotive and machinery manufacturing, chemicals, steel and non-ferrous metal industries.
Chinese export restrictions have been mainly export duties or export quotas, as well as additional requirements and procedures for exporters. They create serious disadvantages for foreign industries by artificially increasing China’s export prices and driving up world prices. Such restrictions also artificially lower China’s domestic prices for raw materials. As they increase domestic supplies. This gives China’s local industries a competitive advantage and puts pressure on foreign producers to move their operations and technologies to China.
The EU, together with the US and Japan, launched a WTO dispute settlement case in March 2012. Initial consultations with China did not bring an amicable solution. As a result, the WTO set up a panel in June 2012. The Panel report was issued on 26 March 2014 and was full victory for the EU and its co-complainants. China appealed the report on 25 April 2014. The reports will be adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body within 30 days and China will have to comply with the ruling immediately or within a reasonable period of time that it can request for implementation..................http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-912_en.htm?locale=en
7/8/14
--
-
Related:
China verlängert Produktionsstopp für Seltene Erden
Μάχη ΕΕ-Κίνας για τα ορυκτά της Γροιλανδίας
Ο ορυκτός πλούτος δεν «ανεξαρτητοποιεί» τη Γροιλανδία, λένε επιστήμονες
ΚΙΝΑ: Το γεωπολιτικό παιχνίδι με τις «σπάνιες γαίες»
Πέμπτη 1 Μαΐου 2014
Russia brings case against EU over energy regulations. - World Trade Organization
The EU measures in question were called "Third Energy Package", a legislation for an internal gas and electricity market which came into force in September 2009.
The package was aimed at further opening up the markets in the region by "ownership unbundling," which requires the separation of companies' generation and sale operations from their transmission networks.
In Russia's complaint filed on Wednesday, a number of EU's measures in this sector, including those pertaining to production, supply and transmission of natural gas or electricity, and the alleged discriminatory certification requirements in relation to third countries, were inconsistent with its obligations and commitments under General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures and the Agreement Establishing the WTO, according to the organization.
Response to the request has to be given within 10 days and the member requested shall enter into consultations within a maximum of 30 days after the date of the receipt of the request.
The maximum period of consultations is 60 days after the reception of the request, unless both parties agree otherwise. If consultations fail to resolve the dispute, the complainant may request adjudication by a panel, according to the WTO.
[china.org.cn]
1/5/14
--
-
Related:
Τετάρτη 30 Απριλίου 2014
Russia sues EU over Third Energy Package
“This procedure is provided for in the rules of the Organisation,” the source said, adding that “Russia sent a note to the EU Mission at the WTO and notified the WTO Secretariat thereof”.
The Russian Ministry of Economic Development said earlier it was planning to file such a lawsuit before the end of the first quarter of 2014. In late 2013, Russia filed a lawsuit against the EU over energy adjustments.
Russia’s complaints about the Third Energy Package also remain in force. “We do not remove this issue from the agenda. It’s number two on the list. As regards the Third Energy Package, we are planning to start an investigation within the WTO framework in the first quarter of 2014,” Deputy Minister of Economic Development Alexei Likhachev said in December.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev earlier disagreed with Europe's position on the Third Energy Package as it calls for a revision of existing agreements.
“As for antimonopoly structures, we are not against different procedures if they occur by law, but we think the position on the Third Energy Package is wrong,” Medvedev said.
“Even if it pursues positive goals, it has a significant impact on existing ties and means a rejection of current agreements,” Medvedev said, adding that Russia thinks thought it was a violation.
President Vladimir Putin said he was hopeful that a compromise on the EU Third Energy Package could be reached.
“I do hope very much that we will be able to find a solution to these complex problems and questions through dialogue of partners,” he said.
At the same time, he said it would be unacceptable if the provisions of “the Third Energy Package” were applied retroactively to affect current contracts between Gazprom and consumers.
“All kinds of unilateral decisions are made - ‘the Third Energy Package,’ and it gets applied retroactively in an absolutely unprecedented way, which would seem unacceptable in the modern civilised world, and yet this happens,” he said.
According to Putin, the Third Energy Package can cause damage.
However European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy said that it was designed to ensure a higher degree of competition in the market as EU countries must not depend on any one source of energy supplies.
It confirmed that the EU had no problems with Russian companies if they played by European rules and said that Russia should ratify the Energy Charter in order to reduce risks related to trade and investments in the energy sector.
“The sides are expected to reiterate their intention to develop mutually advantageous energy cooperation for creating an integrated energy complex in Europe, while pressing for strict compliance with existing bilateral and multilateral contractual obligations,” Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said.
- According to the European Commission, the Third Energy Package should promote competition in the EU energy market and push energy prices down in Europe.
Russian Permanent Representative to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov said that the enforcement of this provision has “basically led to nationalisation of pipelines in some East European countries.”..........http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/730117
30/4/14
Τετάρτη 26 Μαρτίου 2014
WTO confirms China’s export restrictions on rare earths and other raw materials incompatible with WTO rules. -European Commission
A World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel today confirmed that China’s export duties and quotas imposed on rare earths, as well as other two raw materials, tungsten and molybdenum, are incompatible with China’s WTO obligations. The report released today concludes the dispute settlement panel proceedings launched jointly by the EU, US and Japan in March 2012.
Which raw materials are at issue in this case?
Rare earths are 17 chemical elements in the periodic table, specifically 15 lanthanides (lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium), as well as scandium and yttrium.
Rare earths are used in virtually all high technology applications which we use in our daily life: computers, cameras, phones, TVs, energy-efficient bulbs, etc. There is also at least a thousand car parts that use rare earths.
More specifically, rare earths are used to produce highly efficient magnets, metal alloys, phosphors, optical material, batteries, ceramics and special abrasive powders. These are, in turn, key components in many products such as wind power turbines, energy-efficient products, flat screens and displays (LED, LCD, plasma), hard drives, camera lenses, glass applications, industrial batteries, and medical or water treatment equipment, to name just a few.
- China is a monopoly supplier of rare earths with more than 90% share of world production.
- Tungsten and molybdenum - two other substances involved in the case - are also crucial materials for European industrial production.
Tungsten is a very hard metal used in cemented carbide and high-speed steel tools. It is used in lighting, electronics, power engineering, coating and joining technology, the automotive and aerospace industries and medical technology. China is by far the largest tungsten producer in the world, accounting for about 90% of total world production.
Molybdenum is a metallic element which is mainly used as an alloying agent for making alloys stronger and more heat-resistant due to molybdenum's high melting temperature. The alloys are further used for filaments for light bulbs. The iron and steel industries account for more than 75% of molybdenum consumption. China is the lead producer of molybdenum worldwide and accounts for 36% of global production.
What is at stake?
China's export restrictions on raw materials have a global impact and affect a significant share of EU trade, employment and production. They limit the availability of components for EU industry and increase the price.
The Chinese export restrictions offer a competitive advantage to Chinese industries that benefit from lower input prices. In some cases, a non-Chinese buyer has to buy its raw materials at a price that is more than twice that paid by a Chinese firm.
In some cases, the raw materials at stake can amount to a considerable share of the total production cost. Rare earths represent for example more than 50% of cost for wind turbine components and 50% to 60% for a LCD display. Therefore, the price difference can carry a decisive competitive disadvantage for components’ makers outside China.
For other final products, such as mobile phones, the impact on the price would be only several euros per item. However, even in such cases, there is most of the time no viable substitute for rare earths. Where there is a substitute, the final product needs to be redesigned and becomes more costly. For example, we do not currently have substitutes for rare earths' phosphorescent features for the whole range of colours. Limited access to those inputs would be a real threat to production of quality mobiles, tablets and PC screens outside China.
EU imports of Chinese raw materials involved in this WTO case are worth €460 million per year but their economic importance goes well beyond this figure. The EU imports only a relatively limited amount of rare earths directly from China. A significantly higher share of imports comes to Europe from other countries in a processed form.
For example, in 2012 total EU trade in hard drives, which contain rare-earths-based mini-magnets, was worth €7.5 billion. The value of EU trade in camera lenses, which contain rare earths and the surface of which must be polished using rare-earth-based polishing powders, amounted to €1 billion.
How does this case relate to an earlier WTO ruling on China’s export restrictions? Was this case different?
In 2012, China already lost a first WTO case concerning its export quotas and duties imposed on other raw materials. The measures considered in the first dispute were very similar to those in today’s ruling. China claimed that the new case was different from the earlier one as the measures are now related to a comprehensive domestic resource conservation policy it put in place. But the WTO panel found that China cannot invoke its conservation policy to justify export restrictions if it only limits supply for foreign users and not for its domestic industry.
Does this ruling prevent China from pursuing its environmental and conservation policies?
The panel’s ruling and the WTO rules in general do not prohibit regulating or limiting mining activities. They do not affect either a country’s right to pursue its resource conservation or environmental protection goals. As a WTO member, China should however refrain from discriminating against foreign users of resources. Contrary to these principles, China placed the main burden of its alleged conservation goals on foreign producers by restricting their access to crucial inputs, while ensuring sufficient supplies at lower prices to its domestic industry. The panel clearly concluded that the sovereign right over a country’s natural resources does not allow it to control international markets and the allocation of raw materials between foreign and domestic users.
Has China implemented the first WTO ruling?
China implemented the first WTO ruling by lifting the export duties and quotas on the products at issue. It maintained, however, an export licence on products previously subject to an export quota. The removal of the export restrictions improved the level playing field on the raw material market. For instance, Chinese export prices of coke - an important input for the steel industry - significantly decreased from the level of $470 per ton to $300 per ton shortly after the removal of export duty. Chinese prices still remain high compared to other sources but the elimination of the export tax in China helped also lower export prices practiced by other countries.
Are there still any other export restrictions in China?
In its WTO Accession Protocol, China committed itself to refrain from imposing export duties except for 84 specific tariff lines. Today, it still applies export duties on 346 tariff lines, as well as export quota and licensing regimes on many products.
What does today’s ruling mean for export restrictions on raw materials not covered by this dispute?
The outcome of this case obliges China to bring its measures into compliance with the ruling. This only applies, however, to the raw materials considered in this case. Nonetheless, the EU hopes that China will revise its export restriction policy more broadly, in the light of the repeated conclusions of the WTO panels.
[europa.eu]
26/3/14
--
-
Related:
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)
GR
FR
DE
ES
IT
RU
EUΟι νεκροί Έλληνες στα μακεδονικά χώματα σάς κοιτούν με οργή
«Παριστάνετε τα "καλά παιδιά" ελπίζοντας στη στήριξη του διεθνή παράγοντα για να παραμείνετε στην εξουσία», ήταν η κατηγορία πο...
