Memorandum by British Ceramic Confederation
1. I am responding to the questions put,
where relevant, in the Committee's call for evidence.
2. A continuation of multilateral trade
negotiations is vital. The question can be answered merely by
looking at the broadening of the scope of the various rounds.
Financial and other services have been included. More importantly
issues like intellectual property have been addressed. Overall
the cumulative outcome of various trade rounds and the WTO set
the trading standards across the world. In their absence it would
be impossible to deal with protectionism, peak tariffs and various
forms of trade barriers. There is an inherent risk that bilateral
agreements undermine multilateral agreements or the ability to
conclude them. These risks must be addressed.
3. Inevitably there has to be a link between
European trade policies and parallel policies on development,
climate change and depletion of natural resources. Arguably Europe
must act on issues like climate change and sustainability, but
in doing so it imposes a substantial burden on its own companies
and operators. Unless that is recognised Europe will be at a disadvantage,
less competitive and subject to serious leakage as particular
products or goods are "exported" to countries or economies
that do not bear the same burden. Current discussions for Phase
3 of the Emissions Trading Scheme graphically illustrate the point.
4. Trade Defence Instruments must continue.
A log of anti-dumping or similar measures would prove the point.
In each and every case the application is based on a perception
that the applicant is disadvantaged by unfair trade. Equally a
log of the decisions would prove that the perception is true in
a large number of cases. In addition the imposition dumping margins
of up to 60% or 70% fairly frequently, demonstrates quite clearly
the scale of the unfair competition and the potential damage to
the applicant. In many cases the defendants attitude to Trade
Defence measures is cynical and devious. There is a record of
cases where a case has been defended, a substantial margin has
been imposed, but the price including the margin has returned
to the previous level within six months. It is equally clear in
similar cases that deliberate circumvention frequently occurs
after the imposition of a dumping margin. The solution is not
to restrict or abolish Trade Defence Instruments. It is the reverse.
Trade Defence Instruments need to be more resolute and have the
ability to deal with the subsequent price adjustments or circumvention.
There is an important point of principle which must be recognised.
The current review of Trade Defence Instruments suggests that
the potential benefit to the Community should be taken into account
in determining the outcome of anti-dumping actions etc. It is
almost dishonest to suggest that the benefit to those who profit
from unfair trade has to be balanced with those who suffer the
damage from direct competition which is unfair. Intellectually
the argument that profiteering can balance proven unfairness cannot
be sustained. Many of the difficulties encountered with Trade
Defence Instruments currently result from an undue reliance on
anti-dumping margins etc. Historically quotas and similar measures
were more effective and almost impossible to circumvent.
5. Various agreements have radically improved
the protection of intellectual property rights. That process has
to continue. Similar to the above it would be inappropriate to
balance development goals with the loss or infringement of intellectual
property rights. The real judgement is the proper definition of
the intellectual property rights and the period of protection
given. Thereafter they must be upheld.
6. There has to be a role for WTO in the
21st century. There is no other mechanism that brings all the
trading partners and blocks together. At the same time peak tariffs
remain, non-tariff barriers continue to exist and infringements
continue to occur. The solution must be to reinforce the WTO and
ensure the various procedures and processes are more effective.
The alternative would be to accept that barriers and protection
can continue to occur and to be seduced by the argument that unfair
trade is acceptable if enough people profit from it.
29 February 2008
| 
