6 ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY MEASURES
AGAINST FARMED ATLANTIC SALMON
(24553)
8721/03
COM(03)224
| Draft Council Regulation terminating the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
Norway and the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of farmed
Atlantic salmon originating in Chile and the Faroe Islands.
|
| Legal base | Article 133; simple majority voting
|
| Document originated | 30 April 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
22 May 2003 |
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 23 May 2003 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None |
| Discussed in Council | 26 May 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared
|
Background
6.1 Community legislation contains provisions enabling
counter measures to be taken where products are dumped on the
Community market or are subsidised to an unreasonable degree.
More specifically, measures were taken on both counts in 1997
against imports of farmed Atlantic salmon from Norway (though
a large number of producers and exporters in Norway have in practice
been exempt from duties so long as they adhere to certain minimum
prices laid down by the Commission). The current document relates
both to a review carried out by the Commission of the measures
applying to Norwegian produce, and to the case for imposing anti-dumping
measures against similar exports from Chile and the Faroe Islands.
The current document
6.2 Under the procedures laid down, the Commission has
to assess the extent of any dumping by establishing representative
samples of producers and exporters in the countries concerned,
and comparing prices on the markets there with those of produce
exported to the Community. Likewise, it seeks to assess the extent
of any subsidies payable in the exporting country on the produce
in question. To the extent that any dumping or subsidy is identified,
the Commission must then examine whether the Community industry
has suffered any material injury, and, if so, whether this can
be attributed to the imports in question. It also has to consider
whether, notwithstanding any such injury, there is any wider
and over-riding Community interest against the imposition of counter
measures.
6.3 In the particular instances dealt with
here, the Commission has concluded that there is a zero dumping
margin in the case of Norway and the Faroe Islands, but that a
margin of nearly 30% exists in the case of Chile. It has also
concluded that, although some elements of subsidy[14]
still remain in Norway, these have declined from 3.8% since the
counter-measures taken in 1997, and are now, at most, only just
over the de minimis level of 1% (and in practice probably
less than that).
6.4 The Commission has, therefore concluded
that the measures currently applying to Norwegian salmon should
be terminated, and that there is no case for such measures in
the case of the Faroe Islands. In the case of Chile, it has concluded
that, notwithstanding the degree of dumping identified, a causal
link between imports from that country and the material injury
which the Community industry was judged to have suffered cannot
be established with the necessary degree of certainty, and that
here too no action should be taken. In doing so, it recognises
that salmon farming provides employment in areas, notably in Scotland
and Ireland, where alternative opportunities are often limited,
but stresses that the primary purpose of these particular instruments
is to counter unfair trade practices.
The Government's view
6.5 In an Explanatory Memorandum of 23 May
2003, the Department of Trade and Industry says that the UK sought
an extension of the existing measures relating to Norway, as it
believes that the case for termination is not supported by the
evidence. In particular, the Government does not accept the Commission's
view that there is little likelihood of further dumping, subsidisation
and injury when the existing measures are terminated. However,
it says that it has not been supported by other Member States
(apart from Ireland), and that there is likely to be a majority
in the Council in favour of termination.[15]
In view of this, the UK intends to make a declaration in COREPER
on the vulnerability of the salmon farming industry, its social
importance in areas with little alternative employment, and the
serious consequences should it cease to exist, once anti dumping/anti
subsidy measures are removed. The UK will also call for a surveillance
mechanism to be put in place to give early warning of any surges
in imports.
Conclusion
6.6 During the normal course of business,
we consider numerous proposals to impose or terminate anti-dumping
or anti-subsidy measures, and we invariably clear these without
a substantive Report. In this case, however, we think it right
to draw to the attention of the House this document, which would
terminate the measures currently in force against imports of farmed
Atlantic salmon from Norway, and which also concludes that there
is no case for imposing anti-dumping measures against such imports
from Chile and the Faroe Islands. In particular, we note that,
notwithstanding the importance of the salmon farming industry
in the UK, notably in Scotland, and the views expressed by the
Government, other Member States (apart from Ireland) have now
endorsed the Commission's conclusions.
6.7 Given
the weight of opinion amongst other Member States, and the voting
system applicable to decisions of this sort, we can understand
why the Government was unable to prevent the Council from endorsing
the Commission's conclusions. However, the decision which has
now been taken makes it all the more important that the Community
should at least put in place the sort of surveillance mechanisms
referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. We are therefore holding
this document under scrutiny, pending further information on this
point.
14 In the form of reduced social payments, and grants,
loans and loan guarantees for industrial and regional development. Back
15
We have since learned that, following discussion in COREPER on
22 May, the proposal was adopted by the Council without further
discussion on 26 May. Back
|
