http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=367
Economic Brief: French Protectionism
Report Drafted By:
Erich Marquardt, Dr. Federico Bordonaro
15 September 2005
On August 31, France announced that it would protect from buyouts by foreign companies domestic industries it considers as strategic. French Finance Minister Thierry Breton stated that the country's "very sensitive sectors" would be shielded from foreign bids. While the complete list of protected industries has not been made public yet, some of the protected industries were leaked to the media. As reported by Les Echos, the protected industries include defense, biotechnology, space technology, telecommunication companies, casinos, encryption, IT security, and antidote production.
France's turn toward protectionism follows a global pattern where states with advanced economies are shielding their domestic industries from foreign competition and from potential state rivals.
French Protectionism Returns
For many observers, the ongoing wave of "economic patriotism" advocated by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is nothing else but the renewal of French-style protectionism marked by the Colbertian tradition of statist direction of the national economy.
After rumors circulated in the summer of 2005 about a possible bid from U.S. drinks giant PepsiCo Inc. for French food giant Danone, and a Wal-Mart bid on supermarket chain Carrefour, many in the French political landscape called for an immediate reaction by the current administration so that France's industrial gems could be saved from American takeover. Therefore, on July 27, de Villepin announced that he would gather all available forces to launch a new economic patriotism.
Additionally, France bailed out its major engineering company Alstom in order to promote the French idea of creating "national champions," and avoided Switzerland's Novartis from buying out the French and German pharmaceutical company Aventis by backing Sanofi's merger with Aventis to create Sanofi-Aventis.
E.U. Concern
Protectionist acts from one of the leading states of the European Union have caused justifiable concern in Brussels. Gregor Kreuzhuber, spokesman for the E.U. Commission, told the press that the E.U. does not "want to see any disguised protectionism" and that the E.U. would review France's proposed economic policy.
Paris, predicting the concern in Brussels, quickly argued that its actions would comply with E.U. economic laws. French Budget Minister Jean-Francois Cope explained to the press, "Our move is completely consistent with community law. … Each country is allowed to define 'strategic' sectors in accordance with national interests -- for example in the defense or sensitive technology sectors." Cope further stated, "It's strictly within this framework that the government is considering measures which would be comparable to those in other European Union countries."
While it is obvious that France will try to argue that its protectionist measures abide by E.U. rules and regulations, there is concern that Paris' actions could set an example for other E.U. states to take similar protectionist measures. The fact that the French have casinos listed as one of their strategic industries -- under the notion that casinos could be used for money laundering -- exemplifies E.U. concern that France's actions are "disguised protectionism."
In its attempt to avoid the E.U. from blocking the passage of the new legislation, France will no doubt try to protect only its most vital industries so as to not draw the scorn of Brussels, but also to protect enough industries so as to appeal to domestic interests at home.
Why Protectionism?
French protectionism partly emanates from Paris' concern with foreign companies purchasing major firms in strategic or pivotal industries. Similar to the way that the U.S. Congress reacted to China National Offshore Oil Corporation's attempted purchase of the U.S. energy company Unocal, Paris does not want to see vital industries owned by outside companies tied to the governments of foreign states.
Additionally, however, Paris also wants to protect its domestic industries so that the country does not sustain a loss of jobs, such as factories closing down and moving operations to Eastern Europe or Asia. It provides the French government popularity in time for the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in 2007; tackling unemployment and successfully coping with globalization's challenges are vital to enhance the administration's credibility. In fact, without appreciable results in reducing the jobless figure in the country, de Villepin will hardly get the necessary support to achieve his ambitious industrial and energy policy. [See: "Intelligence Brief: French Energy Policy"]
As previously mentioned, de Villepin made the protection of French manufacturers a major policy goal after the PepsiCo Inc. bid was announced. After the bid was presented, President Jacques Chirac was reported saying that "the splitting up and the instability of the capital of certain large French businesses are risk factors for employment and for our industrial strength." It was then that de Villepin boldly announced it was time for France to display "real economic patriotism," or, in other words, economic nationalism. He argued, "When times are hard, when the world is changing, it is a question of gathering our strengths … and defending France and things French."
While Paris' rhetoric is very bold, in the end the French policy is similar to unspoken protectionist policies in other states with advanced economies, as was most recently seen in the protectionist bid by the U.S. and the E.U. against Chinese textile imports.
The important difference, however, is that the protectionist actions in the face of increased Chinese textile imports were taken by the E.U. as a whole, whereas Paris' "economic patriotism" idea is distinctly French. [See: "Economic Brief: Textile Quotas"]
Despite this concern, Les Echos reported that the list of protected industries it acquired did not list any food companies or, for instance, oil companies. However, the French Industry Ministry did state that it would reserve the right to prevent foreign takeovers of companies that had subsidiaries involved in any of the listed "sensitive sectors" and that the government would make the decision to bar a foreign takeover on a case-by-case basis.
The Bottom Line
After decades of dominating political discourse, economic liberalism looks now in a crisis because important decision-makers (such as in France) perceive it as fiction that conceals the hard reality of economic warfare and power relations among states. If France's republican and social-democratic traditions form an axis with the neo-Gaullist right-wing and prevail in the short/medium term over the neo-liberal reformists, look for a new social and political bloc to take shape around the "economic patriotism" policy in France, with considerable consequences for the European Union as a whole.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Biofuels Protectionism Trumps Climate Concerns: Just How Green is Biofuel?
http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalAgricultureandBiofuels08/idUSN1661111120080116?sp=true
Biofuels protectionism trumps climate concerns
By Inae Riveras
Reuters
January 16, 2008
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Despite world concerns about global warming and the impact of biofuel production on food prices, policy makers have done little to boost international trade of cheaper and more environmentally friendly fuels for consumers, experts said.
Import tariffs and trade barriers have prevented, for example, an increase in cane-based ethanol exports from Brazil, the world's most competitive producer of the biofuel. Shipments are actually expected to be lower in 2008 than last year.
In Europe, biodiesel producers have been hit by an increase in U.S. imports, which benefit from subsidies if they are blended with mineral diesel. To counterattack, the EU bloc may impose countervailing duties, industry leaders said.
The EU has also been affected by large volumes of Argentine biodiesel at cheap prices, which are encouraged by preferential taxes. The product is charged a 5 percent tariff by Argentina's government, while edible oil exports have a 30 percent duty.
"Some countries are trying to solve a world problem, which is global warming and climate change, just with national solutions," said the head of Brazil's Sugar Cane Industry Union (Unica), Marcos Jank, at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.
According to Unica, cane-based fuel has higher productivity than other feedstocks. Sugar cane yields seven liters of ethanol per hectare compared with three liters with corn.
Production costs are lower, and energy efficiency -- amount of energy used in the process versus energy resulting -- is five times higher with cane than with corn, Unica said.
Moreover, its impact on food prices is much more limited than the one caused by corn or wheat. Almost a third of the next U.S. crop may be turned into fuel, increasing upward pressure on food inflation.
But tariffs in some of the world's largest fuels markets like the U.S. and Europe will limit ethanol exports. Shipments from Brazil are to drop this year to 3.4 billion liters, down from 3.8 billion liters in 2007, Datagro consultants said.
GLOOM PERSPECTIVES
Unica argues its position is not self-promotional as cane-based ethanol could come also from Asia, Africa or South America. More than 100 countries -- most of them poor nations -- have natural conditions to grow cane.
"Europe is trying to subsidize their farmers to produce ethanol from beet and wheat instead of buying ethanol from abroad. The same happens in the U.S. Most of the ethanol there will come from corn, probably from biomass in the future, but not imported (ethanol)," Jank said.
"We believe that if these countries consider to import more from developing countries, the energy and environmental balance would be much better, and costs would be much lower."
But signals from these countries point to the opposite direction.
The chairman of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, said on Tuesday tax credits and tariffs on ethanol would have to be maintained to create the necessary conditions for the development of cellulosic ethanol.
"We are hoping that we won't have any changes in the tax or tariffs any time soon," he said.
Brazilian ethanol is charged with a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff to enter the U.S. market. This makes direct sales possible only on specific and uncommon occasions, depending on low prices in Brazil and high prices in the United States.
And perspectives remain negative as the U.S. passed in December its Energy Bill, which sets a target for biofuel use of 36 billion gallons -- none of them imported, in principle.
"They (U.S.) won't open their market. They will stick to its import tariff and create a quota, and then administrate this quota under geopolitical criteria," said the president of Brazil's Datagro consultants, Plinio Nastari.
Wallace Tyner, professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said it would be necessary either alter the mandate or change the tariff for U.S. to meet its goal.
"Brazil and a lot of Central American countries have a capacity to expand pretty quickly their ethanol production if they get signals that there's a market for it," Tyner said.
Biofuels protectionism trumps climate concerns
By Inae Riveras
Reuters
January 16, 2008
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Despite world concerns about global warming and the impact of biofuel production on food prices, policy makers have done little to boost international trade of cheaper and more environmentally friendly fuels for consumers, experts said.
Import tariffs and trade barriers have prevented, for example, an increase in cane-based ethanol exports from Brazil, the world's most competitive producer of the biofuel. Shipments are actually expected to be lower in 2008 than last year.
In Europe, biodiesel producers have been hit by an increase in U.S. imports, which benefit from subsidies if they are blended with mineral diesel. To counterattack, the EU bloc may impose countervailing duties, industry leaders said.
The EU has also been affected by large volumes of Argentine biodiesel at cheap prices, which are encouraged by preferential taxes. The product is charged a 5 percent tariff by Argentina's government, while edible oil exports have a 30 percent duty.
"Some countries are trying to solve a world problem, which is global warming and climate change, just with national solutions," said the head of Brazil's Sugar Cane Industry Union (Unica), Marcos Jank, at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.
According to Unica, cane-based fuel has higher productivity than other feedstocks. Sugar cane yields seven liters of ethanol per hectare compared with three liters with corn.
Production costs are lower, and energy efficiency -- amount of energy used in the process versus energy resulting -- is five times higher with cane than with corn, Unica said.
Moreover, its impact on food prices is much more limited than the one caused by corn or wheat. Almost a third of the next U.S. crop may be turned into fuel, increasing upward pressure on food inflation.
But tariffs in some of the world's largest fuels markets like the U.S. and Europe will limit ethanol exports. Shipments from Brazil are to drop this year to 3.4 billion liters, down from 3.8 billion liters in 2007, Datagro consultants said.
GLOOM PERSPECTIVES
Unica argues its position is not self-promotional as cane-based ethanol could come also from Asia, Africa or South America. More than 100 countries -- most of them poor nations -- have natural conditions to grow cane.
"Europe is trying to subsidize their farmers to produce ethanol from beet and wheat instead of buying ethanol from abroad. The same happens in the U.S. Most of the ethanol there will come from corn, probably from biomass in the future, but not imported (ethanol)," Jank said.
"We believe that if these countries consider to import more from developing countries, the energy and environmental balance would be much better, and costs would be much lower."
But signals from these countries point to the opposite direction.
The chairman of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, said on Tuesday tax credits and tariffs on ethanol would have to be maintained to create the necessary conditions for the development of cellulosic ethanol.
"We are hoping that we won't have any changes in the tax or tariffs any time soon," he said.
Brazilian ethanol is charged with a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff to enter the U.S. market. This makes direct sales possible only on specific and uncommon occasions, depending on low prices in Brazil and high prices in the United States.
And perspectives remain negative as the U.S. passed in December its Energy Bill, which sets a target for biofuel use of 36 billion gallons -- none of them imported, in principle.
"They (U.S.) won't open their market. They will stick to its import tariff and create a quota, and then administrate this quota under geopolitical criteria," said the president of Brazil's Datagro consultants, Plinio Nastari.
Wallace Tyner, professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said it would be necessary either alter the mandate or change the tariff for U.S. to meet its goal.
"Brazil and a lot of Central American countries have a capacity to expand pretty quickly their ethanol production if they get signals that there's a market for it," Tyner said.
The Time For Doha Is Now
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=129745
2008 is ‘make or break’ for Doha trade talks: World leaders
MeriNews, India
Amidst fears of a worldwide fiscal depression mounting, trade leaders at the WEF pressed businesses to push their governments to seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks this year or risk rise in new barriers to international business
WITH FEARS of a global economic recession growing, trade leaders at Davos urged businesses to press their governments to seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks in 2008, or risk seeing a rise in new barriers to international commerce.
“If it’s not concluded this year, it won’t be concluded next year - and by 2010 the caravans will have moved on elsewhere,” Peter Mandelson, commissioner, Trade, European Commission, Brussels, told participants at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008. “Not only will the caravans have moved on in different directions of trade negotiations, but what has already been on the table, which in my view is quite substantial, will have been put into deep freeze.”
After more than six years of stop-start negotiations, the Doha talks between members of the World Trade Organization have ground to a halt. With less than a year before US President George Bush leaves office, time is rapidly running out for reaching an agreement to reduce tariffs, subsidies and promote freer and fairer trade, panelists said.
The plenary session “Threats to the Global Trading System” followed an informal lunch meeting of trade ministers in Davos. Despite important progress on technical issues over the past six months, panelists revealed, the group remains no closer to an agreement and scepticism is high. Concerns persist among developing countries that lower tariffs will unfairly expose poor rural farmers to global competition and jeopardise growth that would be a potential buffer against a global slowdown.
“The content of this Round must deliver to healthy economies in Asia, in Africa, in the Pacific and in Latin America because that’s the goose that’s laying the golden egg,” said Kamal Nath, minister of Commerce and Industry of India.
But the cost of failure is rising, panelists said. Failure in the Doha Round would be likely to increase protectionist pressures around the world and result in a rollback from the progress already made towards freer global trade. Mandelson said the negotiations had become a prisoner to some extent of the American political calendar. Campaigning is already underway for elections to replace Bush next January, and a new president is unlikely to be able to put the Doha Round at the front of the US policy agenda, he said. The new President is likely to want to review any commitments that have already been made.
President Bush remains strongly committed to reaching a trade deal, insisted US representative Susan Schwab, and bipartisan support for a deal in the US Congress means there is still time to ratify a deal if one can be reached, she said.
Pascal Lamy, director general, World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, said a failure in the talks could exacerbate the impact of a slowing global economy and heighten geopolitical tensions. Celso Amorim, minister of Foreign Relations of Brazil, echoing these concerns, said failure to reach a deal in 2008 would “give the wrong signals to the global economy. And this will be detrimental to everybody, most of all the developing economies.”
Indeed, continued delays had lost the negotiators’ credibility among voters and companies, said Doris Leuthard, federal councillor of Economic Affairs of the Swiss Confederation. “When we don’t get a result, national protectionism is a big threat,” she said.
While businesses may be frustrated with the lack of progress in the Doha Round, companies still have a great deal to gain from it, Mandelson stressed - and a great deal to lose if a deal is not reached. “There is very significant economic value in binding the existing openness in the global economy,” he said.
Companies, therefore, most overcome their scepticism to push for a successful deal, panelists said. “The capacity of any one of us to deliver such a package through our political systems will depend in large measure on what the private sector is doing and saying, and whether they hold accountable leaders in their countries,” said Schwab.
2008 is ‘make or break’ for Doha trade talks: World leaders
MeriNews, India
Mineguruji, 27 January 2008,
Amidst fears of a worldwide fiscal depression mounting, trade leaders at the WEF pressed businesses to push their governments to seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks this year or risk rise in new barriers to international business
WITH FEARS of a global economic recession growing, trade leaders at Davos urged businesses to press their governments to seek a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks in 2008, or risk seeing a rise in new barriers to international commerce.
“If it’s not concluded this year, it won’t be concluded next year - and by 2010 the caravans will have moved on elsewhere,” Peter Mandelson, commissioner, Trade, European Commission, Brussels, told participants at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2008. “Not only will the caravans have moved on in different directions of trade negotiations, but what has already been on the table, which in my view is quite substantial, will have been put into deep freeze.”
After more than six years of stop-start negotiations, the Doha talks between members of the World Trade Organization have ground to a halt. With less than a year before US President George Bush leaves office, time is rapidly running out for reaching an agreement to reduce tariffs, subsidies and promote freer and fairer trade, panelists said.
The plenary session “Threats to the Global Trading System” followed an informal lunch meeting of trade ministers in Davos. Despite important progress on technical issues over the past six months, panelists revealed, the group remains no closer to an agreement and scepticism is high. Concerns persist among developing countries that lower tariffs will unfairly expose poor rural farmers to global competition and jeopardise growth that would be a potential buffer against a global slowdown.
“The content of this Round must deliver to healthy economies in Asia, in Africa, in the Pacific and in Latin America because that’s the goose that’s laying the golden egg,” said Kamal Nath, minister of Commerce and Industry of India.
But the cost of failure is rising, panelists said. Failure in the Doha Round would be likely to increase protectionist pressures around the world and result in a rollback from the progress already made towards freer global trade. Mandelson said the negotiations had become a prisoner to some extent of the American political calendar. Campaigning is already underway for elections to replace Bush next January, and a new president is unlikely to be able to put the Doha Round at the front of the US policy agenda, he said. The new President is likely to want to review any commitments that have already been made.
President Bush remains strongly committed to reaching a trade deal, insisted US representative Susan Schwab, and bipartisan support for a deal in the US Congress means there is still time to ratify a deal if one can be reached, she said.
Pascal Lamy, director general, World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, said a failure in the talks could exacerbate the impact of a slowing global economy and heighten geopolitical tensions. Celso Amorim, minister of Foreign Relations of Brazil, echoing these concerns, said failure to reach a deal in 2008 would “give the wrong signals to the global economy. And this will be detrimental to everybody, most of all the developing economies.”
Indeed, continued delays had lost the negotiators’ credibility among voters and companies, said Doris Leuthard, federal councillor of Economic Affairs of the Swiss Confederation. “When we don’t get a result, national protectionism is a big threat,” she said.
While businesses may be frustrated with the lack of progress in the Doha Round, companies still have a great deal to gain from it, Mandelson stressed - and a great deal to lose if a deal is not reached. “There is very significant economic value in binding the existing openness in the global economy,” he said.
Companies, therefore, most overcome their scepticism to push for a successful deal, panelists said. “The capacity of any one of us to deliver such a package through our political systems will depend in large measure on what the private sector is doing and saying, and whether they hold accountable leaders in their countries,” said Schwab.
India, Brazil Slam New Attempts by EU & US to Secure Green Trade Barriers at Doha
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04357213.htm
India, Brazil slam new WTO Doha proposals
04 Dec 2007
Reuters
By Jonathan Lynn
India and Brazil criticised two new sets of proposals in the Doha round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Tuesday, signalling that wide gaps in the negotiations remain despite recent progress.
The two developing countries, who play a major role in the talks, said that a U.S.-EU proposal to free up trade in environmental goods was little more than a disguised attempt to boost sales of goods of rich nations.
They also said a negotiating text on "rules" -- anti-dumping, subsidies and fisheries subsidies -- was a step backwards that excessively accommodated U.S. concerns.
India also expressed alarm that the key agriculture talks were tilting too much towards the needs of rich countries and were ignoring the requirements of the sub-continent's millions of subsistence farmers.
India has been committed to the Doha talks, launched six years ago and now aiming for conclusion next year, said India's WTO ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia.
"But if, God forbid, a time comes when that price of engagement is unpayable by us, then we will have to stand up and say that," he told Reuters.
NO BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION
The United States and the European Union launched a proposal in the long-running Doha talks last Friday to counter climate change by eliminating tariffs on 43 climate-friendly goods and setting up a wider agreement on environmental goods and services for developed and advanced developing countries.
"We don't think it's a basis for negotiation on environmental products," said Brazil's top trade negotiator, Roberto Azevedo. "Brazil is deeply disappointed with the proposal. We find the proposal modest, we find it biased and we find it protectionist," he told a briefing. Azevedo noted that the U.S.-EU proposal made no reference to biofuels, of which Brazil is a major producer, or the technologies to produce them, and said the list was geared to U.S.-EU products. "Anything that they don't produce is not on the list," he said.
Bhatia said India could support proposals to free up trade in goods whose sole use was countering climate change, such as solar panels or windmills, but the list could be extended over time to new models of cars or refrigerators that were more energy-efficient, and that was unacceptable.
"Their list is a disguised effort at getting market access through other means and does not satisfy the mandate for environment," he said.
Both Brazil and India expressed dismay at the rules proposal that met U.S. concerns by allowing a controversial method of calculating anti-dumping duties called zeroing. This would allow the abuse of trade remedies to foster protectionism, they said.
Washington had said it was disappointed at last Friday's proposals, but added they were a basis for negotiation.
Bhatia said the proposals on banning most fisheries subsidies, welcomed by environmental groups, would cause India difficulty as it tries to improve the living conditions of its fishermen, among the poorest people in the country.
The proposals do give some leeway to developing countries to support fishermen, but he said the conditions, such as setting up approved fisheries management schemes, were too onerous.
Senior Indian Commerce Department official Jayant Dasgupta said a disproportionate effort in the WTO's key agriculture talks was going into shielding the commercial interests of the relatively small number of farmers in rich countries.
At the same time poor countries were being squeezed on proposals to protect the livelihoods of subsistence farmers making up the majority of the population -- 65 percent in India's case.
India needed to shield such people, often living on less than $1 a day, from market fluctuations, and encourage them to stay on the land to ensure food security for the country.
India, Brazil slam new WTO Doha proposals
04 Dec 2007
Reuters
By Jonathan Lynn
India and Brazil criticised two new sets of proposals in the Doha round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Tuesday, signalling that wide gaps in the negotiations remain despite recent progress.
The two developing countries, who play a major role in the talks, said that a U.S.-EU proposal to free up trade in environmental goods was little more than a disguised attempt to boost sales of goods of rich nations.
They also said a negotiating text on "rules" -- anti-dumping, subsidies and fisheries subsidies -- was a step backwards that excessively accommodated U.S. concerns.
India also expressed alarm that the key agriculture talks were tilting too much towards the needs of rich countries and were ignoring the requirements of the sub-continent's millions of subsistence farmers.
India has been committed to the Doha talks, launched six years ago and now aiming for conclusion next year, said India's WTO ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia.
"But if, God forbid, a time comes when that price of engagement is unpayable by us, then we will have to stand up and say that," he told Reuters.
NO BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION
The United States and the European Union launched a proposal in the long-running Doha talks last Friday to counter climate change by eliminating tariffs on 43 climate-friendly goods and setting up a wider agreement on environmental goods and services for developed and advanced developing countries.
"We don't think it's a basis for negotiation on environmental products," said Brazil's top trade negotiator, Roberto Azevedo. "Brazil is deeply disappointed with the proposal. We find the proposal modest, we find it biased and we find it protectionist," he told a briefing. Azevedo noted that the U.S.-EU proposal made no reference to biofuels, of which Brazil is a major producer, or the technologies to produce them, and said the list was geared to U.S.-EU products. "Anything that they don't produce is not on the list," he said.
Bhatia said India could support proposals to free up trade in goods whose sole use was countering climate change, such as solar panels or windmills, but the list could be extended over time to new models of cars or refrigerators that were more energy-efficient, and that was unacceptable.
"Their list is a disguised effort at getting market access through other means and does not satisfy the mandate for environment," he said.
Both Brazil and India expressed dismay at the rules proposal that met U.S. concerns by allowing a controversial method of calculating anti-dumping duties called zeroing. This would allow the abuse of trade remedies to foster protectionism, they said.
Washington had said it was disappointed at last Friday's proposals, but added they were a basis for negotiation.
Bhatia said the proposals on banning most fisheries subsidies, welcomed by environmental groups, would cause India difficulty as it tries to improve the living conditions of its fishermen, among the poorest people in the country.
The proposals do give some leeway to developing countries to support fishermen, but he said the conditions, such as setting up approved fisheries management schemes, were too onerous.
Senior Indian Commerce Department official Jayant Dasgupta said a disproportionate effort in the WTO's key agriculture talks was going into shielding the commercial interests of the relatively small number of farmers in rich countries.
At the same time poor countries were being squeezed on proposals to protect the livelihoods of subsistence farmers making up the majority of the population -- 65 percent in India's case.
India needed to shield such people, often living on less than $1 a day, from market fluctuations, and encourage them to stay on the land to ensure food security for the country.
India and Pakistan Make Effort to Avoid Using Geographical Indicators for Pashmina Shawls as Protectionist Cloak
http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2007/12/basmati-redux-pashmina-story.html
Basmati redux: the Pashmina story
You can see them being sold everywhere: in the open-air stalls of Dilli Haat in the capital; in the crowded, winding lanes of Chinatown in Singapore; in the fashionable streets by the Hotel de Ville in Paris… Pashmina shawls, both real and fake, have become a global fashion statement, and can be found draped around every neck this winter. But where exactly do they originate?
In a replay of the Super Basmati yarn, troubles between India and Pakistan have been raging over the registration of the Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Kashmir-made Pashmina wool. HT reports that while Pakistan is “open to a joint GI tag”, India has said that this would be possible only if Pakistani Pashmina is proven to be of the same quality as the Indian variety.
The dispute originated when the Srinagar-based Craft Development Institute filed an application with the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai to protect Pashmina weavers from others claiming to be authentic (See this earlier SpicyIP post). The Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry immediately challenged this on grounds that Pashmina shawls are also woven in Pakistan’s Gilgit Baltistan region and that India could not solely claim the GI, Mint reported a few months ago.
Pashmina is not the sole case in point of a GI being disputed by different countries; Basmati has received more media attention. But there are several obvious examples that emerge, particularly in the arts and crafts, where antecedents of origin lie along the border lines in the sub-continent: Kutchi-work in Gujarat and Kantha embroidery, Madhubani paintings in Bihar…
While all of these have not been registered as GIs, there remains the nagging question: how are these entities to be treated? Neither TRIPS nor the national legislation provides for the joint registration of GIs. At best, such an arrangement will have to be arrived at through bilateral or plurilateral agreements, as the case may be.
In disputes with Pakistan over GIs, the problem is twofold, as Spicy IP’s Prashant Reddy reported earlier: the political state of affairs in the country has beset legislators with more immediate concerns; and Pakistan is yet to have a GI law in place.
One suggested solution is that of countries simultaneously registering homonymous GIs, similar to the provision under section 3, Art 22.3 of TRIPs (‘homonyms’ are names which consist of, or contain, the same identifier for different geographical places):
In the case of homonymous geographical indications for wines, protection shall be accorded to each indication, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 22. Each Member shall determine the practical conditions under which the homonymous indications in question will be differentiated from each other, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the producers concerned and that consumers are not misled.
In Beijing earlier this year, at the International Symposium on GIs, the International Trademark Association (INTA) recommended a multilateral registry for GIs along the lines of the Patent Cooperation Treaty and the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks.
The conflict resolution mechanism recommended by INTA is in-built in the principles of territoriality, priority and exclusivity that the PCT and the Madrid system espouse. The paper cites the example of Veracruz coffee beans, and Budweiser beer, illustrating that national offices and courts were best positioned to undertake an IPR priority examination. This model assumes that the question of priority of an IPR registration will differ from one country to another and prior IPR will not be registered in all countries where protection of the conflicting geographical indication is sought.
Lack of precedent makes it hard to evaluate whether the INTA model is workable; or if a joint-homonymous GI is feasible. There is little consensus between WTO member countries on GIs such as these; and clearly, there is an urgent need to evolve and implement a working model before the GI protection system loses legitimacy in the wake of such issues.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_background_e.htm
TRIPS: GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
Background and the current situation
A product’s quality, reputation or other characteristics can be determined by where it comes from. Geographical indications are place names (in some countries also words associated with a place) used to identify products that come from these places and have these characteristics (for example, “Champagne”, “Tequila” or “Roquefort”).
Two issues are debated in the TRIPS Council under the Doha mandate: creating a multilateral register for wines and spirits; and extending the higher (Article 23) level of protection beyond wines and spirits.
Basmati redux: the Pashmina story
You can see them being sold everywhere: in the open-air stalls of Dilli Haat in the capital; in the crowded, winding lanes of Chinatown in Singapore; in the fashionable streets by the Hotel de Ville in Paris… Pashmina shawls, both real and fake, have become a global fashion statement, and can be found draped around every neck this winter. But where exactly do they originate?
In a replay of the Super Basmati yarn, troubles between India and Pakistan have been raging over the registration of the Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Kashmir-made Pashmina wool. HT reports that while Pakistan is “open to a joint GI tag”, India has said that this would be possible only if Pakistani Pashmina is proven to be of the same quality as the Indian variety.
The dispute originated when the Srinagar-based Craft Development Institute filed an application with the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai to protect Pashmina weavers from others claiming to be authentic (See this earlier SpicyIP post). The Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry immediately challenged this on grounds that Pashmina shawls are also woven in Pakistan’s Gilgit Baltistan region and that India could not solely claim the GI, Mint reported a few months ago.
Pashmina is not the sole case in point of a GI being disputed by different countries; Basmati has received more media attention. But there are several obvious examples that emerge, particularly in the arts and crafts, where antecedents of origin lie along the border lines in the sub-continent: Kutchi-work in Gujarat and Kantha embroidery, Madhubani paintings in Bihar…
While all of these have not been registered as GIs, there remains the nagging question: how are these entities to be treated? Neither TRIPS nor the national legislation provides for the joint registration of GIs. At best, such an arrangement will have to be arrived at through bilateral or plurilateral agreements, as the case may be.
In disputes with Pakistan over GIs, the problem is twofold, as Spicy IP’s Prashant Reddy reported earlier: the political state of affairs in the country has beset legislators with more immediate concerns; and Pakistan is yet to have a GI law in place.
One suggested solution is that of countries simultaneously registering homonymous GIs, similar to the provision under section 3, Art 22.3 of TRIPs (‘homonyms’ are names which consist of, or contain, the same identifier for different geographical places):
In the case of homonymous geographical indications for wines, protection shall be accorded to each indication, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 22. Each Member shall determine the practical conditions under which the homonymous indications in question will be differentiated from each other, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the producers concerned and that consumers are not misled.
In Beijing earlier this year, at the International Symposium on GIs, the International Trademark Association (INTA) recommended a multilateral registry for GIs along the lines of the Patent Cooperation Treaty and the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks.
The conflict resolution mechanism recommended by INTA is in-built in the principles of territoriality, priority and exclusivity that the PCT and the Madrid system espouse. The paper cites the example of Veracruz coffee beans, and Budweiser beer, illustrating that national offices and courts were best positioned to undertake an IPR priority examination. This model assumes that the question of priority of an IPR registration will differ from one country to another and prior IPR will not be registered in all countries where protection of the conflicting geographical indication is sought.
Lack of precedent makes it hard to evaluate whether the INTA model is workable; or if a joint-homonymous GI is feasible. There is little consensus between WTO member countries on GIs such as these; and clearly, there is an urgent need to evolve and implement a working model before the GI protection system loses legitimacy in the wake of such issues.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_background_e.htm
TRIPS: GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
Background and the current situation
A product’s quality, reputation or other characteristics can be determined by where it comes from. Geographical indications are place names (in some countries also words associated with a place) used to identify products that come from these places and have these characteristics (for example, “Champagne”, “Tequila” or “Roquefort”).
Two issues are debated in the TRIPS Council under the Doha mandate: creating a multilateral register for wines and spirits; and extending the higher (Article 23) level of protection beyond wines and spirits.
Many in China Get It: See EU Environmental Regulations For What They Really Are - Disguised Trade Barriers
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2007-08/15/content_6027388.htm
Green barrier disguises face of protectionism
By Huang Qing
(China Daily) August 15, 2007
The European Union's Framework Directive on Eco-design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP), or the third-generation "green barrier", was implemented on Saturday.
The EuP standard puts stricter environmental requirements on energy-using products' life cycle assessment and, therefore, exercises restrictive influence on those products' design, manufacture, use, maintenance and retrieval.
Compared to the EU's two earlier green barrier directives, the EuP directive imposes stricter requirements, has a wider scope and will have a greater impact on the business of relevant firms.
Green barriers are an economic phenomenon, which emerged this century as environmental-protection awareness grows ever stronger across the globe. Europe is an area where environmental protection consciousness runs highest and, consequently, related undertakings take on an aura of sacredness.
It is against this ideological background that the EU has promulgated its green barrier directives. Thanks to the fact that environmental problems pose a serious threat to mankind and that sustainable development and green consumption represent the trend of the times, the barriers do have some virtue.
But behind the morality facade, I fear some protectionist considerations are at work.
Dictated by globalization necessities, the world's industrial structure is undergoing a major realignment and some manufacturing operations are moving to the developing world, of which China is a part.
However, the rapid expansion of manufacturing industries in these countries rouses worries from developed countries. In this context, the developed nations put in place green and technological barriers one after the other, in a bid to hold an advantageous position over the competition.
By setting up green technological standards, developed countries automatically push up the cost of developing nations' exports by large margins and, in turn, weaken their competitive power.
Besides enjoying technological advantages, developed countries maintain an edge over developing nations in testing technologies. So the latter, apart from bearing larger production costs, have to pay large amounts of "soft costs" in the forms of testing and certification fees.
In addition, the green barriers serve to make the deteriorating environment in developing countries all the worse.
Developing countries generally implement lower environmental standards than developed ones. And transnational corporate giants, all of which are headquartered in developed countries, shift energy-consuming and high-polluting operations into developing nations through making investments, or simply dump non-green products into these nations.
The green barriers, therefore, make developing countries shoulder double baggage - the worsening environment caused by dumped goods and by engaging in energy-consuming and high polluting production operations.
The green barriers, which are actually a new type of trade barrier, have gained acceptance from the World Trade Organization. They can steer clear of many trade rules and render the competitors speechless. And the latter stand little chance of winning any case on trade disputes arising from the implementation of the green barriers.
[THIS ASSESSMENT IS NOT TRUE - THERE IS AMPLE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO PREVAIL IN A WTO DISPUTE IF BROUGHT]***
Generally, there are no unified international standards to follow in working out green requirements. Developed countries that enjoy the right to formulate them, are thus automatically placed in an advantageous position. In many cases, what they say goes.
In view of all this, the green barriers are a kind of one-way green tax levied on the developing world.
[IT IS ALSO A ONE-WAY GREEN TAX LEVIED ON DEVELOPED COUNTRY CITIZENS]**
Developing countries are caught in a green dilemma. On the one hand, going green represents the trend of the times and ecological civilization and sustainable development are the common aspirations of all mankind. On the other, they are at a green disadvantage, having insufficient capital and backward technologies. Worse still, they also have disadvantages in social awareness, education and social organization.
Confronted by the green barriers, what can companies in developing countries do?
In business it is all about the survival of the fittest, so these firms must adapt to the changing situations and respond to the challenges. This means they must raise the environmental standards of their products.
In the face of the green barriers, the developing world should have more say in green affairs.
For example, it should push developed countries to shoulder the historical responsibilities for global warming and make better use of the compensation mechanisms for carbon-discharge reduction.
Also, they should appeal more strongly for lowering the threshold of environmental-protection technology transfer and put stricter controls on the shift of energy-consuming and high polluting operations.
[BY FIGHTING EUROPE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AT THE WTO, CHINA, INDIA, ETC. CAN ENSURE THAT THERE EXIST OBJECTIVE REGULATORY BENCHMARKS TO GUIDE POLICY MANAGEMENT OF PROVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS]**
The world's environmental problem today is to a fairly large extent a product of the past. Developed countries, in the course of their industrialization, wrought damage to the global environment. This is a historical debt they should pay. Moreover, their way of life today should also be held responsible for the worsening environment.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE - CHINA, INDIA AND OTHER INDUSTRIALIZING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE PLAYING A ROLE IN EXACERBATING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS]**
It is unfair to make the developing world shoulder all the historical responsibilities or pay the historical debt. Developed countries should take more responsibility for global environmental protection.
The author is a council member of the China Foundation of International Studies
Green barrier disguises face of protectionism
By Huang Qing
(China Daily) August 15, 2007
The European Union's Framework Directive on Eco-design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP), or the third-generation "green barrier", was implemented on Saturday.
The EuP standard puts stricter environmental requirements on energy-using products' life cycle assessment and, therefore, exercises restrictive influence on those products' design, manufacture, use, maintenance and retrieval.
Compared to the EU's two earlier green barrier directives, the EuP directive imposes stricter requirements, has a wider scope and will have a greater impact on the business of relevant firms.
Green barriers are an economic phenomenon, which emerged this century as environmental-protection awareness grows ever stronger across the globe. Europe is an area where environmental protection consciousness runs highest and, consequently, related undertakings take on an aura of sacredness.
It is against this ideological background that the EU has promulgated its green barrier directives. Thanks to the fact that environmental problems pose a serious threat to mankind and that sustainable development and green consumption represent the trend of the times, the barriers do have some virtue.
But behind the morality facade, I fear some protectionist considerations are at work.
Dictated by globalization necessities, the world's industrial structure is undergoing a major realignment and some manufacturing operations are moving to the developing world, of which China is a part.
However, the rapid expansion of manufacturing industries in these countries rouses worries from developed countries. In this context, the developed nations put in place green and technological barriers one after the other, in a bid to hold an advantageous position over the competition.
By setting up green technological standards, developed countries automatically push up the cost of developing nations' exports by large margins and, in turn, weaken their competitive power.
Besides enjoying technological advantages, developed countries maintain an edge over developing nations in testing technologies. So the latter, apart from bearing larger production costs, have to pay large amounts of "soft costs" in the forms of testing and certification fees.
In addition, the green barriers serve to make the deteriorating environment in developing countries all the worse.
Developing countries generally implement lower environmental standards than developed ones. And transnational corporate giants, all of which are headquartered in developed countries, shift energy-consuming and high-polluting operations into developing nations through making investments, or simply dump non-green products into these nations.
The green barriers, therefore, make developing countries shoulder double baggage - the worsening environment caused by dumped goods and by engaging in energy-consuming and high polluting production operations.
The green barriers, which are actually a new type of trade barrier, have gained acceptance from the World Trade Organization. They can steer clear of many trade rules and render the competitors speechless. And the latter stand little chance of winning any case on trade disputes arising from the implementation of the green barriers.
[THIS ASSESSMENT IS NOT TRUE - THERE IS AMPLE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO PREVAIL IN A WTO DISPUTE IF BROUGHT]***
Generally, there are no unified international standards to follow in working out green requirements. Developed countries that enjoy the right to formulate them, are thus automatically placed in an advantageous position. In many cases, what they say goes.
In view of all this, the green barriers are a kind of one-way green tax levied on the developing world.
[IT IS ALSO A ONE-WAY GREEN TAX LEVIED ON DEVELOPED COUNTRY CITIZENS]**
Developing countries are caught in a green dilemma. On the one hand, going green represents the trend of the times and ecological civilization and sustainable development are the common aspirations of all mankind. On the other, they are at a green disadvantage, having insufficient capital and backward technologies. Worse still, they also have disadvantages in social awareness, education and social organization.
Confronted by the green barriers, what can companies in developing countries do?
In business it is all about the survival of the fittest, so these firms must adapt to the changing situations and respond to the challenges. This means they must raise the environmental standards of their products.
In the face of the green barriers, the developing world should have more say in green affairs.
For example, it should push developed countries to shoulder the historical responsibilities for global warming and make better use of the compensation mechanisms for carbon-discharge reduction.
Also, they should appeal more strongly for lowering the threshold of environmental-protection technology transfer and put stricter controls on the shift of energy-consuming and high polluting operations.
[BY FIGHTING EUROPE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AT THE WTO, CHINA, INDIA, ETC. CAN ENSURE THAT THERE EXIST OBJECTIVE REGULATORY BENCHMARKS TO GUIDE POLICY MANAGEMENT OF PROVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS]**
The world's environmental problem today is to a fairly large extent a product of the past. Developed countries, in the course of their industrialization, wrought damage to the global environment. This is a historical debt they should pay. Moreover, their way of life today should also be held responsible for the worsening environment.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE - CHINA, INDIA AND OTHER INDUSTRIALIZING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE PLAYING A ROLE IN EXACERBATING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS]**
It is unfair to make the developing world shoulder all the historical responsibilities or pay the historical debt. Developed countries should take more responsibility for global environmental protection.
The author is a council member of the China Foundation of International Studies
110th Congressional Majority Adopts EU Position: Supports US Presidential Candidates With Anti-Liberal Trade Protectionist Agenda
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40856
CHALLENGES 2007-2008: U.S. Election Fever May Delay Doha Talks
Analysis by Aileen Kwa
IPS News
GENEVA, Jan 21 (IPS) -
A busy negotiating schedule is lined up for this year at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The question remains whether negotiators will have to continue passing the time as the powers-that-be in Washington are consumed by pre-election politics, or if the technical solutions which they have been working on could, in fact, lead to a conclusion of the Doha Development Round.
The chairs of the negotiations on agricultural and industrial products are expected to release another round of draft texts at the end of January. This will be followed by intense text-based negotiations.
If things go according to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy’s Plan A, modalities (new rules and commitments) for agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) are to be concluded by March or April.
There could even be what an African delegate termed a ‘‘medium-sized’’ ministerial meeting to endorse the modalities at this time, with a fully fledged ministerial meeting at the end of 2008 to conclude the Round.
There are varying opinions as to the likelihood of Plan A materializing. As 2007 slipped away and the U.S. entered both a recession and an even fiercer stage of partisan pre-election frenzy, it seems unlikely that Washington is in any mood to liberalise trade.
Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, based in Washington, told IPS that ‘‘there is no appetite for a Doha Round here. The only Doha deal that could possibly break this mood would have to be something so lopsidedly pro-U.S. big corporations that it would not be a feasible outcome.
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP ARE ACTIVISTS THAT WISH FOR AMERICA TO ADOPT EUROPEAN NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS] **
‘‘That is, if there was some sudden windfall pile of trade goodies to harvest without the U.S. having to give much, then that would get things moving here. We’re heading into a recession and trade is increasingly politically toxic, given our 800 billion dollar trade deficit and its effect in slowing our growth by two percentage points’’, she added.
[WHAT MS. WALLACH IS REFERRING TO IS PROTECTIONISM]
Referring to the increasingly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Wallach observed, ‘‘the Democratic presidential candidates are all trying to ‘out anti-NAFTA’ each other. Remarkably, even half of the Republican presidential candidates are anti-NAFTA and anti-WTO.’’
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP SUPPORT ANTI-LIBERAL TRADE RHETORIC BECAUSE IT PROMOTES EUROPEAN & WTO DIRECTOR PACAL LAMY'S EFFORTS TO INCORPORATE MORE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE & CULTURAL PREFERENCE EXCEPTIONS TO LIBERAL TRADE INTO THE WTO AGREEMENTS]**
See "Polluting the Future of the WTO", at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/PollutingtheFuture.pdf
Then there is the issue of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the authority granted by the U.S. Congress to the U.S. president to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could approve or reject but not amend. President George W. Bush’s administration requires the TPA to conclude the Round.
According to Wallach, ‘‘Bush has a 5 percent chance of getting a Doha-only TPA. If there had been a broader window of opportunity, that was shut down at the end of last year when Bush vetoed or threatened to veto every single Democratic priority initiative passed by Congress.’’
According to a WTO negotiator from West Africa, ‘‘I have not seen any sign or commitment that 2008 is a definitive date. It is an aspiration, but I won’t be surprised if it will go to 2009. And if it does, the election in the U.S. would be over and they would be able to test the waters.’’
He said that within the Group of 33 (or G33, a coalition of developing countries which has been calling for the protection of food security and rural livelihoods), ‘‘we have criticized ourselves for being too flexible, and the flexibility should not be one-sided. We are waiting for reciprocity from the developed countries.
‘‘At the end of the day, we will have a blame game. Developed countries will ask for more liberalisation in NAMA and services and they will blame developing countries for not showing signs of flexibility. Developing countries will say that our interests have not been taken seriously,’ he added.
From his point of view, the U.S. and the EU are now very obviously working closely together, and ‘‘just from seeing that, I think that there will be no movement on their side.’’
However, not all negotiators share his prognosis for 2008. An East African negotiator underscored that ground has been covered on some technical issues. ‘‘The possibility of a conclusion looks positive, not completely, but more positive than before.’’ (END/2008)
CHALLENGES 2007-2008: U.S. Election Fever May Delay Doha Talks
Analysis by Aileen Kwa
IPS News
GENEVA, Jan 21 (IPS) -
A busy negotiating schedule is lined up for this year at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The question remains whether negotiators will have to continue passing the time as the powers-that-be in Washington are consumed by pre-election politics, or if the technical solutions which they have been working on could, in fact, lead to a conclusion of the Doha Development Round.
The chairs of the negotiations on agricultural and industrial products are expected to release another round of draft texts at the end of January. This will be followed by intense text-based negotiations.
If things go according to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy’s Plan A, modalities (new rules and commitments) for agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) are to be concluded by March or April.
There could even be what an African delegate termed a ‘‘medium-sized’’ ministerial meeting to endorse the modalities at this time, with a fully fledged ministerial meeting at the end of 2008 to conclude the Round.
There are varying opinions as to the likelihood of Plan A materializing. As 2007 slipped away and the U.S. entered both a recession and an even fiercer stage of partisan pre-election frenzy, it seems unlikely that Washington is in any mood to liberalise trade.
Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, based in Washington, told IPS that ‘‘there is no appetite for a Doha Round here. The only Doha deal that could possibly break this mood would have to be something so lopsidedly pro-U.S. big corporations that it would not be a feasible outcome.
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP ARE ACTIVISTS THAT WISH FOR AMERICA TO ADOPT EUROPEAN NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS] **
‘‘That is, if there was some sudden windfall pile of trade goodies to harvest without the U.S. having to give much, then that would get things moving here. We’re heading into a recession and trade is increasingly politically toxic, given our 800 billion dollar trade deficit and its effect in slowing our growth by two percentage points’’, she added.
[WHAT MS. WALLACH IS REFERRING TO IS PROTECTIONISM]
Referring to the increasingly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Wallach observed, ‘‘the Democratic presidential candidates are all trying to ‘out anti-NAFTA’ each other. Remarkably, even half of the Republican presidential candidates are anti-NAFTA and anti-WTO.’’
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP SUPPORT ANTI-LIBERAL TRADE RHETORIC BECAUSE IT PROMOTES EUROPEAN & WTO DIRECTOR PACAL LAMY'S EFFORTS TO INCORPORATE MORE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE & CULTURAL PREFERENCE EXCEPTIONS TO LIBERAL TRADE INTO THE WTO AGREEMENTS]**
See "Polluting the Future of the WTO", at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/PollutingtheFuture.pdf
Then there is the issue of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the authority granted by the U.S. Congress to the U.S. president to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could approve or reject but not amend. President George W. Bush’s administration requires the TPA to conclude the Round.
According to Wallach, ‘‘Bush has a 5 percent chance of getting a Doha-only TPA. If there had been a broader window of opportunity, that was shut down at the end of last year when Bush vetoed or threatened to veto every single Democratic priority initiative passed by Congress.’’
According to a WTO negotiator from West Africa, ‘‘I have not seen any sign or commitment that 2008 is a definitive date. It is an aspiration, but I won’t be surprised if it will go to 2009. And if it does, the election in the U.S. would be over and they would be able to test the waters.’’
He said that within the Group of 33 (or G33, a coalition of developing countries which has been calling for the protection of food security and rural livelihoods), ‘‘we have criticized ourselves for being too flexible, and the flexibility should not be one-sided. We are waiting for reciprocity from the developed countries.
‘‘At the end of the day, we will have a blame game. Developed countries will ask for more liberalisation in NAMA and services and they will blame developing countries for not showing signs of flexibility. Developing countries will say that our interests have not been taken seriously,’ he added.
From his point of view, the U.S. and the EU are now very obviously working closely together, and ‘‘just from seeing that, I think that there will be no movement on their side.’’
However, not all negotiators share his prognosis for 2008. An East African negotiator underscored that ground has been covered on some technical issues. ‘‘The possibility of a conclusion looks positive, not completely, but more positive than before.’’ (END/2008)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Protectionists Within 110th Congress Toyed With Bringing Global Trade War; Considered Carbon Emissions Limits & Carbon Border Taxes!
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10134052
Climate change - Green protectionism
Nov 15th 2007
From The Economist print edition [ECONOMIST APPROVES OF ALL U.S. LEGISLATION THAT HELPS OUT EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES]
A dangerous flaw in a bill to control carbon emissions
FOR those (such as this newspaper) who argue that the only way to avert dangerous climate change is to set a price on CO2 emissions, what's going on in America's Congress is excellent news. A bill to set such a price has achieved a remarkable degree of cross-party support (see article). Federal emissions controls in America are essential to tackling climate change globally. So it is especially unfortunate that the bill includes a provision that would turn the fight against climate change into a tool for protectionists.
While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America's quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth. Defence hawks have been arguing that America needs to reduce its dependency on the Middle East.
But two powerful groups have remained determinedly sceptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organised labour, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.
The main purpose of the bill is to establish a carbon price through a cap-and-trade system. The proposal is a reasonable one, informed by the experience of Europe's similar scheme.
[IT MUST BE RECALLED IN A PRIOR FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE POSTED IN THIS BLOG THAT THE EU COMMISSION HAS ADMITTED ITS FLAWED ENERGY POLICY FOCUSING ON EMISSIONS CAP LIMITS!!!]
But to placate the manufacturers and the unions, the bill also includes a measure which Europe has rightly abjured (although some member states have recently been demanding one) for a border tax on carbon-intensive goods. Imports would have to be certified as to their carbon content, and would be taxed accordingly.
Proponents of the idea argue, first, that American producers would otherwise be disadvantaged by the higher costs that their country's stricter standards impose on them. Second, they maintain, a tax would encourage developing-country governments to cut the carbon-intensity of their economies for fear of losing lucrative export markets.
Be green and grow
[IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE FRENCH ATTALI COMMISSION RECENTLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, WHICH SERVES AS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ENACTING SUCH DRACONIAN RULES REFLECTS THAT 'ENLIGHTENED' PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTALISM IMPOSES LIMITS TO GROWTH]**
On the first argument, if America establishes a carbon price, an energy-intensive industry such as aluminium would very likely choose to expand capacity elsewhere. Yet it is not clear that, in the long run, environmental regulation does much to suppress economic growth. After all, California imposes tighter rules on companies than do most other American states, but its long boom suggests that greenery and growth can coexist comfortably. [CALIFORNIA, TO BE SURE, IS A VERY EXPENSIVE STATE TO DO BUSINESS IN, LET ALONE TO LIVE IN!!!]
[IF IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT GROWTH IS IMPAIRED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, WHY REGULATE IN THIS MANNER???]
China and India might well come more swiftly to the negotiating table if they faced the possibility of losing their export markets. [CHINA AND INDIA WOULD BE IMPAIRING THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP WERE THEY TO ADOPT UNREALISTIC CARBON EMISSIONS LIMITS AND CARBON BORDER TAXES!!]
But the experience of America and Europe suggests that threatening trade sanctions is not the only way to bring a country round. After all, Europe set a carbon price without imposing tariffs on American goods, and America looks like following its lead anyway. What's more, the costs of a border tax could be huge, not just because of the massive bureaucracy needed to certify the carbon content of different goods imported from different factories in different countries, but also because such a tax would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of America's growing gang of protectionists.
The people who worry most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.
Climate change - Green protectionism
Nov 15th 2007
From The Economist print edition [ECONOMIST APPROVES OF ALL U.S. LEGISLATION THAT HELPS OUT EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES]
A dangerous flaw in a bill to control carbon emissions
FOR those (such as this newspaper) who argue that the only way to avert dangerous climate change is to set a price on CO2 emissions, what's going on in America's Congress is excellent news. A bill to set such a price has achieved a remarkable degree of cross-party support (see article). Federal emissions controls in America are essential to tackling climate change globally. So it is especially unfortunate that the bill includes a provision that would turn the fight against climate change into a tool for protectionists.
While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America's quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth. Defence hawks have been arguing that America needs to reduce its dependency on the Middle East.
But two powerful groups have remained determinedly sceptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organised labour, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.
The main purpose of the bill is to establish a carbon price through a cap-and-trade system. The proposal is a reasonable one, informed by the experience of Europe's similar scheme.
[IT MUST BE RECALLED IN A PRIOR FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE POSTED IN THIS BLOG THAT THE EU COMMISSION HAS ADMITTED ITS FLAWED ENERGY POLICY FOCUSING ON EMISSIONS CAP LIMITS!!!]
But to placate the manufacturers and the unions, the bill also includes a measure which Europe has rightly abjured (although some member states have recently been demanding one) for a border tax on carbon-intensive goods. Imports would have to be certified as to their carbon content, and would be taxed accordingly.
Proponents of the idea argue, first, that American producers would otherwise be disadvantaged by the higher costs that their country's stricter standards impose on them. Second, they maintain, a tax would encourage developing-country governments to cut the carbon-intensity of their economies for fear of losing lucrative export markets.
Be green and grow
[IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE FRENCH ATTALI COMMISSION RECENTLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, WHICH SERVES AS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ENACTING SUCH DRACONIAN RULES REFLECTS THAT 'ENLIGHTENED' PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTALISM IMPOSES LIMITS TO GROWTH]**
On the first argument, if America establishes a carbon price, an energy-intensive industry such as aluminium would very likely choose to expand capacity elsewhere. Yet it is not clear that, in the long run, environmental regulation does much to suppress economic growth. After all, California imposes tighter rules on companies than do most other American states, but its long boom suggests that greenery and growth can coexist comfortably. [CALIFORNIA, TO BE SURE, IS A VERY EXPENSIVE STATE TO DO BUSINESS IN, LET ALONE TO LIVE IN!!!]
[IF IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT GROWTH IS IMPAIRED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, WHY REGULATE IN THIS MANNER???]
China and India might well come more swiftly to the negotiating table if they faced the possibility of losing their export markets. [CHINA AND INDIA WOULD BE IMPAIRING THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP WERE THEY TO ADOPT UNREALISTIC CARBON EMISSIONS LIMITS AND CARBON BORDER TAXES!!]
But the experience of America and Europe suggests that threatening trade sanctions is not the only way to bring a country round. After all, Europe set a carbon price without imposing tariffs on American goods, and America looks like following its lead anyway. What's more, the costs of a border tax could be huge, not just because of the massive bureaucracy needed to certify the carbon content of different goods imported from different factories in different countries, but also because such a tax would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of America's growing gang of protectionists.
The people who worry most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.
[CONSIDERATION BY US LEGISLATORS AND INDUSTRIES OF SUCH RIDICULOUS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN NO DOUBT TRIGGERED BY A MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT EUROPE'S GLOBAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL JUGGERNAUT WILL SUCCEED!!]
Friday, January 25, 2008
EU Climate Change Chicanery: ITSSD Research Findings on European Disguised Protectionism Validated
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/01/22/us_warns_eu_on_using_climate_change_as_pretext/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/business/carbon.php
US warns EU on using climate change as pretext
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/business/carbon.php
US warns EU on using climate change as pretext
By James Kanter and Stephen Castle,
International Herald Tribune,
22 January 2008
Official says it has been an excuse for protectionism
BRUSSELS - The United States warned the European Union yesterday against using climate change as a pretext for protectionism, setting the stage for trans-Atlantic tension over a new package of EU measures to combat global warming.
The pointed comments by the US trade representative, Susan Schwab, after talks in Brussels, came just two days before the European Commission introduced its proposals for cutting EU emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.
"We have been dismayed at a variety of suggestions where we have seen the climate and the environment being used as an excuse to close markets," Schwab said after discussions with Peter Mandelson, her European counterpart.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called for a carbon tax on imports to ensure that European companies that need to comply with tough environmental rules are not undercut by foreign competitors whose governments are not capping carbon emissions.
EU officials were not expected to propose such a measure tomorrow but were expected to keep alive the possibility of a so-called border tax to keep European industries competitive.
The EU pledge to protect European industry by 2011 at the latest will be aimed at assuaging powerful lobby groups from sectors like steel and aluminum manufacturing, which say they are facing higher costs than their overseas competitors because of the EU's determination to lead the world in climate protection.
Even so, EU officials hope to be able to avoid the issue, not least because any European border tax could be challenged at the World Trade Organization.
Instead, EU officials hope that other developed countries like the United States, which did not sign the Kyoto climate treaty, will join an international treaty by the end of the decade, making protectionist measures unnecessary.
Measures other than the border tax that are under discussion by EU officials and diplomats in Brussels include granting greater numbers of free pollution permits than planned. Officials say they believe such a method would not break world trade rules.
The EU also could condone global agreements within sectors like steel and cement, rather than between nations.
In that scenario, industries worldwide in a particular manufacturing sector would agree to cut their pollution by a certain amount, in theory leveling the competitive playing field.
EU officials say they are optimistic about a global climate accord after the recent meeting of nearly 200 nations in Bali, Indonesia, where agreement was reached on laying out a plan for negotiations that could produce a climate treaty by 2009.
But the Bali Action Plan faces high hurdles, including the persistently thorny problem of convincing the United States to take action even if fast-developing countries like China, which insists on developments getting higher priority than emissions curbs, fail to make similar pledges.
Schwab also took issue with Europe's attitude toward genetically modified foods, which she described as "perfectly safe."
She singled out France's decision to go slowly on cultivation of genetically modified corn.
French Rethinking the Precautionary Principle?? Jamais!!!
Communique From ITSSD Journal Advisory Board Member, Dr. Sorin Straja About France and the Precautionary Principle:
January 23, 2008
Dear Dr. Kogan,
I just came from a trip in France. While there I heard the news about the recommendation of the Jacques Attali commission regarding the Precautionary Principle. Apparently, this commission felt that this principle should be discarded as it is a hurdle for development. However, the reaction was quite strong (the commission was labeled as the ATTILA commission) and the draft document released this week does NOT mention the precautionary principle. Please let me know if you want me to follow up with the recommendations of this commission (may be released in the near future).
... Apparently, the French President Sarkozy has already rejected two proposals of the Attali Commission: the administrative reorganization of France abolishing the counties ("départements") and ... the precautionary principle.
Please See: "Sarkozy rejette deux propositions du rapport Attali", reported on the website of "Le Figaro" one of the most popular French daily papers:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2008/01/23/04001-20080123ARTFIG00421-sarkozy-rejette-deux-propositions-du-rapport-attali.php .
The subheadline prominently reads:
Nicolas Sarkozy a relevé quelques désaccords avec les propositions formulées par Jacques Attali. Le chef de l'État est contre la suppression des départements et celle du principe de précaution
Thank you very much for your help.
Sorin Straja
Here is the news report in French:
Commission Attali: les premières propositions suscitent la polémique
PARIS (AFP) — Les premières propositions de la Commission pour la libération de la croissance française (CLCF) présidée par Jacques Attali, qui devait remettre lundi après-midi au président Nicolas Sarkozy un rapport d'étape sur le pouvoir d'achat, ont déjà déclenché la polémique.
Selon des informations de presse publiées vendredi, les membres de la commission suggéraient notamment de retirer de la Constitution le "principe de précaution", considéré comme un frein à la croissance, ce qui a suscité une levée de boucliers.
Le ministre de l'Ecologie, Jean-Louis Borloo, s'est fermement opposé lundi à cette suppression, rappelant que "le principe de précaution fait partie de traités internationaux que la France a signés".
La secrétaire d'Etat à l'Ecologie, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, avait auparavant qualifié cette position de "réactionnaire". "Il faut cesser de considérer que l'environnement est une limite à la croissance", a affirmé celle qui fut rapporteur de la Charte de l'environnement, qui avait inscrit ce principe dans la Constitution en 2005.
Dès vendredi, la CLCF avait souligné que ses propositions étaient "en cours de finalisation" et que "les documents qui ont pu être diffusés jusqu'ici ne correspondent pas à l'état actuel des propositions".
La commission Attali contre le principe de precaution
La Commission pour la libération de la croissance propose, dans son rapport d'étape, de le retirer de la Constitution ou encore d'abroger les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin sur la distribution.
Présidée par Jacques Attali, la Commission pour la libération de la croissance (CLCF) va suggérer au président de la République de retirer le principe de précaution de la Constitution, d'abroger les lois sur la distribution, de lancer des mesures pour le logement et la stimulation du pouvoir d'achat, écrit Le Figaro dans son édition de vendredi 12 octobre.
Selon la une du quotidien, transmise jeudi soir à Reuters, qui cite le rapport d'étape de la commission remis lundi prochain au président de la République, "les membres de la commission demandent à Nicolas Sarkozy de retirer le principe de précaution qui figure actuellement dans la Constitution. Ils y voient un frein majeur à la croissance".
Grande consommation et logement
La commission propose également une libéralisation radicale de la distribution, poursuit Le Figaro. "En abrogeant les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin, sur le commerce, il serait possible de faire baisser de 2 à 4% les prix des produits de grande consommation", écrit le quotidien.
"Pour relancer le logement, la commission propose neuf séries de mesures: alléger le contrat de bail, instaurer la TVA à 5,5% pour les jeunes, créer des villes nouvelles ultraécolos…", poursuit-il. La Commission suggère également une vaste restructuration des 850 organismes de HLM dont le nombre serait réduit afin d'augmenter leur efficacité.
La commission livrera également "une trentaine de recommandations pour libérer les contraintes qui pèsent sur les revenus des ménages", lit-on également sur la une du Figaro, sans plus de précision. (Reuters)
...The PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is questioned by the Attali Commission Report providing 316 proposals “to liberate the French growth.”
Jacques Attali gave on January 23, 2008 to the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Prime Minister Francois Fillon the “Report Of The Commission For The Liberation Of The French Growth”. Please find attached the original document (in full in French). The major goals are to obtain an additional 1% of growth, to bring back the rate of unemployment to 5 %, and to reduce the national debt.
One of the most unexpected proposals is to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify, the precautionary principle.
Also attached is...my translation of the section where the precautionary principle is mentioned.
Jacques Attali, between 1981 and 1991, was a French presidential adviser as part of the country's socialist government. In April 1991 he became the first President of the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development established to assist the former communist countries in their transition to democratic market economies.
Sorin Straja
OBJECTIVE: To rethink the precautionary principle
The constitutional law n° 2005-205 of March 1st, 2005 inscribed in the constitutional text the “Charter of the environment of 2004”. It thus meets an increasing concern of the citizens with regard to their environment and testifies to the interest that the Parliament carries to these questions. However, article 5 of the Charter introduces a new provision in constitutional law, by referring to a “precautionary principle”, already present in the legislative corpus, and whose normative range remains uncertain.
This reference generates judicial uncertainties and installs a context prejudicial to the innovation and the growth, because of the risks of dispute of responsibility against the most innovating companies in front of the courts of law. It also burdens with a heavy presumption the decisions of administrative police force.
The need for protection is undeniable. It is established and recognized by the European texts.
If the constitutional text intends to prevent the realization of damages harmful to the collectivity, its very open drafting leaves place to potentially divergent interpretations, likely to paralyze the economic activity and that of the administration.
In effect, the concept of damage affecting the “environment in a gravely and irreversible way” is not defined by the constitutional text. Moreover, the reality of the “damage” is only very vaguely specified there: it is enough that its realization be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” to oblige the administration to act. This fuzzy formulation opens to the judge the possibility of interpreting the founding text of the Republic. This situation is not ideal from the point of view of democracy.
Moreover, article 5 of the Charter of the environment risks to inhibit the fundamental and applied research, insofar as an innovation which potentially would generate a damage whose realization would be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” could open recourse of responsibility, against the companies or institutes of research as well as against public collectivities charged with administrative police force. Moreover, sometimes this sanction would intervene only at the end of a long legal procedure, thus paralyzing the activity of the public and private laboratories.
In addition, the administrative action itself would be very slow due to this vague formulation. In virtue of this constitutional text modified in 2005, the administration is supposed to be able to follow the whole scientific research, which appears not very realistic. Not being able to do it, the administration will thus resort very often to prohibition, the solution that is judicially the most sure, administratively the most comfortable, and the more penalizing for our growth.
Finally, article 5 of the Charter of the environment is not dissociable from article 7 that imposes that the decisions of precaution be taken with the participation of the citizens. Under French reality, the precautionary principle leads to situations of indecision that are penalizing for the industrialists and, in a general way, for the long-term investment.
The constitutionalisation of the principle solidifies reality and constitutes an obstacle to the growth: the legislator should be able to preserve a room for maneuver to define precise conditions of application of the principle.
Consequently, it seems convenient to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify the range of article 5 of the Charter of the environment of 2004, with respect to both the private operators and the public authorities, by a revision of the constitutional text, which will make it possible to specify the nature of the “damage” and the conditions of its compensation.
January 23, 2008
Dear Dr. Kogan,
I just came from a trip in France. While there I heard the news about the recommendation of the Jacques Attali commission regarding the Precautionary Principle. Apparently, this commission felt that this principle should be discarded as it is a hurdle for development. However, the reaction was quite strong (the commission was labeled as the ATTILA commission) and the draft document released this week does NOT mention the precautionary principle. Please let me know if you want me to follow up with the recommendations of this commission (may be released in the near future).
... Apparently, the French President Sarkozy has already rejected two proposals of the Attali Commission: the administrative reorganization of France abolishing the counties ("départements") and ... the precautionary principle.
Please See: "Sarkozy rejette deux propositions du rapport Attali", reported on the website of "Le Figaro" one of the most popular French daily papers:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2008/01/23/04001-20080123ARTFIG00421-sarkozy-rejette-deux-propositions-du-rapport-attali.php .
The subheadline prominently reads:
Nicolas Sarkozy a relevé quelques désaccords avec les propositions formulées par Jacques Attali. Le chef de l'État est contre la suppression des départements et celle du principe de précaution
Thank you very much for your help.
Sorin Straja
Here is the news report in French:
Commission Attali: les premières propositions suscitent la polémique
PARIS (AFP) — Les premières propositions de la Commission pour la libération de la croissance française (CLCF) présidée par Jacques Attali, qui devait remettre lundi après-midi au président Nicolas Sarkozy un rapport d'étape sur le pouvoir d'achat, ont déjà déclenché la polémique.
Selon des informations de presse publiées vendredi, les membres de la commission suggéraient notamment de retirer de la Constitution le "principe de précaution", considéré comme un frein à la croissance, ce qui a suscité une levée de boucliers.
Le ministre de l'Ecologie, Jean-Louis Borloo, s'est fermement opposé lundi à cette suppression, rappelant que "le principe de précaution fait partie de traités internationaux que la France a signés".
La secrétaire d'Etat à l'Ecologie, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, avait auparavant qualifié cette position de "réactionnaire". "Il faut cesser de considérer que l'environnement est une limite à la croissance", a affirmé celle qui fut rapporteur de la Charte de l'environnement, qui avait inscrit ce principe dans la Constitution en 2005.
Dès vendredi, la CLCF avait souligné que ses propositions étaient "en cours de finalisation" et que "les documents qui ont pu être diffusés jusqu'ici ne correspondent pas à l'état actuel des propositions".
La commission Attali contre le principe de precaution
La Commission pour la libération de la croissance propose, dans son rapport d'étape, de le retirer de la Constitution ou encore d'abroger les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin sur la distribution.
Présidée par Jacques Attali, la Commission pour la libération de la croissance (CLCF) va suggérer au président de la République de retirer le principe de précaution de la Constitution, d'abroger les lois sur la distribution, de lancer des mesures pour le logement et la stimulation du pouvoir d'achat, écrit Le Figaro dans son édition de vendredi 12 octobre.
Selon la une du quotidien, transmise jeudi soir à Reuters, qui cite le rapport d'étape de la commission remis lundi prochain au président de la République, "les membres de la commission demandent à Nicolas Sarkozy de retirer le principe de précaution qui figure actuellement dans la Constitution. Ils y voient un frein majeur à la croissance".
Grande consommation et logement
La commission propose également une libéralisation radicale de la distribution, poursuit Le Figaro. "En abrogeant les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin, sur le commerce, il serait possible de faire baisser de 2 à 4% les prix des produits de grande consommation", écrit le quotidien.
"Pour relancer le logement, la commission propose neuf séries de mesures: alléger le contrat de bail, instaurer la TVA à 5,5% pour les jeunes, créer des villes nouvelles ultraécolos…", poursuit-il. La Commission suggère également une vaste restructuration des 850 organismes de HLM dont le nombre serait réduit afin d'augmenter leur efficacité.
La commission livrera également "une trentaine de recommandations pour libérer les contraintes qui pèsent sur les revenus des ménages", lit-on également sur la une du Figaro, sans plus de précision. (Reuters)
...The PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is questioned by the Attali Commission Report providing 316 proposals “to liberate the French growth.”
Jacques Attali gave on January 23, 2008 to the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Prime Minister Francois Fillon the “Report Of The Commission For The Liberation Of The French Growth”. Please find attached the original document (in full in French). The major goals are to obtain an additional 1% of growth, to bring back the rate of unemployment to 5 %, and to reduce the national debt.
One of the most unexpected proposals is to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify, the precautionary principle.
Also attached is...my translation of the section where the precautionary principle is mentioned.
Jacques Attali, between 1981 and 1991, was a French presidential adviser as part of the country's socialist government. In April 1991 he became the first President of the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development established to assist the former communist countries in their transition to democratic market economies.
Sorin Straja
OBJECTIVE: To rethink the precautionary principle
The constitutional law n° 2005-205 of March 1st, 2005 inscribed in the constitutional text the “Charter of the environment of 2004”. It thus meets an increasing concern of the citizens with regard to their environment and testifies to the interest that the Parliament carries to these questions. However, article 5 of the Charter introduces a new provision in constitutional law, by referring to a “precautionary principle”, already present in the legislative corpus, and whose normative range remains uncertain.
This reference generates judicial uncertainties and installs a context prejudicial to the innovation and the growth, because of the risks of dispute of responsibility against the most innovating companies in front of the courts of law. It also burdens with a heavy presumption the decisions of administrative police force.
The need for protection is undeniable. It is established and recognized by the European texts.
If the constitutional text intends to prevent the realization of damages harmful to the collectivity, its very open drafting leaves place to potentially divergent interpretations, likely to paralyze the economic activity and that of the administration.
In effect, the concept of damage affecting the “environment in a gravely and irreversible way” is not defined by the constitutional text. Moreover, the reality of the “damage” is only very vaguely specified there: it is enough that its realization be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” to oblige the administration to act. This fuzzy formulation opens to the judge the possibility of interpreting the founding text of the Republic. This situation is not ideal from the point of view of democracy.
Moreover, article 5 of the Charter of the environment risks to inhibit the fundamental and applied research, insofar as an innovation which potentially would generate a damage whose realization would be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” could open recourse of responsibility, against the companies or institutes of research as well as against public collectivities charged with administrative police force. Moreover, sometimes this sanction would intervene only at the end of a long legal procedure, thus paralyzing the activity of the public and private laboratories.
In addition, the administrative action itself would be very slow due to this vague formulation. In virtue of this constitutional text modified in 2005, the administration is supposed to be able to follow the whole scientific research, which appears not very realistic. Not being able to do it, the administration will thus resort very often to prohibition, the solution that is judicially the most sure, administratively the most comfortable, and the more penalizing for our growth.
Finally, article 5 of the Charter of the environment is not dissociable from article 7 that imposes that the decisions of precaution be taken with the participation of the citizens. Under French reality, the precautionary principle leads to situations of indecision that are penalizing for the industrialists and, in a general way, for the long-term investment.
The constitutionalisation of the principle solidifies reality and constitutes an obstacle to the growth: the legislator should be able to preserve a room for maneuver to define precise conditions of application of the principle.
Consequently, it seems convenient to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify the range of article 5 of the Charter of the environment of 2004, with respect to both the private operators and the public authorities, by a revision of the constitutional text, which will make it possible to specify the nature of the “damage” and the conditions of its compensation.
Sarkozy Claims to Back Attali Commission's Liberalization Plan: But Rejects Recommendation to Scrap Precautionary Principle!
Sarkozy backs liberalisation plan [???]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17d878de-c9c0-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html
By Ben Hall in Paris
Financial Times
January 23 2008 20:04
President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday gave his backing to a far-reaching plan to liberalise the French economy and raise its trend rate of growth to 3 per cent within five years.
Mr Sarkozy said he supported “in the main” the conclusions of a commission chaired by Jacques Attali, the economist and former socialist presidential adviser, and would convene a ministerial committee next month to decide which of the measures to put in place first.
The Attali commission produced 316 proposals to liberalise sheltered sectors of the economy, cut the cost and improve the flexibility of the labour market, and streamline public administration.
“If some people have been alarmed by the contents of your proposals, I find them rather reasonable in the main”, Mr Sarkozy said as he received the report from Mr Attali.
The president signalled his support for opening up regulated services, such as taxis, to greater competition, saying some professional regulations were “perfectly obsolete”. But he said this would require careful negotiation with those affected “who cannot be ignored for reasons of equity”.
Opening up regulated professions is likely to be one of the most hotly contested recommendations.
François Hollande, the opposition socialist leader, criticised “the many worrying proposals” in the Attali report.
According to Mr Attali, Mr Sarkozy disagreed with only two of the commission’s 316 recommendations: the scrapping of the precautionary principle (conferring the benefit of the doubt against technological innovations) enshrined in France’s constitution and the abolition of the department, the revolutionary-era local government unit.
However, Mr Sarkozy said nothing about the commission’s recommendation for France to open its doors to 250,000 immigrants each year as a way of lifting its growth rate by 0.5 per cent.
The Attali commission set out a blue print for cutting unemployment from 8 to 5 per cent, halving poverty and cutting public spending as a share of national output by 1 percentage point a year.
The report makes many sweeping recommendations.
To take advantage of the growth in financial services, the commission proposes that France harmonise its entire set of financial and stock market regulation with that of Britain’s two remove the competitive disadvantage of Paris as a financial centre relative to London.
Although the commission argues its recommendations are broadly cost neutral, it is counting on the Caisse des Depôts et Consignations, France’s sovereign wealth fund, to help finance ten new university “centres of excellence” and universal access to super high-speed internet services by 2016.
Some of the most radical measures relate to public services. The Attali commission wants to confer some activities, such as tax collection, to executive agencies.
It is also proposing a radical shake-up of the schools system, scrapping catchment areas and giving parents a voucher to encourage competition between institutions.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17d878de-c9c0-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.html
By Ben Hall in Paris
Financial Times
January 23 2008 20:04
President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday gave his backing to a far-reaching plan to liberalise the French economy and raise its trend rate of growth to 3 per cent within five years.
Mr Sarkozy said he supported “in the main” the conclusions of a commission chaired by Jacques Attali, the economist and former socialist presidential adviser, and would convene a ministerial committee next month to decide which of the measures to put in place first.
The Attali commission produced 316 proposals to liberalise sheltered sectors of the economy, cut the cost and improve the flexibility of the labour market, and streamline public administration.
“If some people have been alarmed by the contents of your proposals, I find them rather reasonable in the main”, Mr Sarkozy said as he received the report from Mr Attali.
The president signalled his support for opening up regulated services, such as taxis, to greater competition, saying some professional regulations were “perfectly obsolete”. But he said this would require careful negotiation with those affected “who cannot be ignored for reasons of equity”.
Opening up regulated professions is likely to be one of the most hotly contested recommendations.
François Hollande, the opposition socialist leader, criticised “the many worrying proposals” in the Attali report.
According to Mr Attali, Mr Sarkozy disagreed with only two of the commission’s 316 recommendations: the scrapping of the precautionary principle (conferring the benefit of the doubt against technological innovations) enshrined in France’s constitution and the abolition of the department, the revolutionary-era local government unit.
However, Mr Sarkozy said nothing about the commission’s recommendation for France to open its doors to 250,000 immigrants each year as a way of lifting its growth rate by 0.5 per cent.
The Attali commission set out a blue print for cutting unemployment from 8 to 5 per cent, halving poverty and cutting public spending as a share of national output by 1 percentage point a year.
The report makes many sweeping recommendations.
To take advantage of the growth in financial services, the commission proposes that France harmonise its entire set of financial and stock market regulation with that of Britain’s two remove the competitive disadvantage of Paris as a financial centre relative to London.
Although the commission argues its recommendations are broadly cost neutral, it is counting on the Caisse des Depôts et Consignations, France’s sovereign wealth fund, to help finance ten new university “centres of excellence” and universal access to super high-speed internet services by 2016.
Some of the most radical measures relate to public services. The Attali commission wants to confer some activities, such as tax collection, to executive agencies.
It is also proposing a radical shake-up of the schools system, scrapping catchment areas and giving parents a voucher to encourage competition between institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
