Commission seeks help in dealing with EU trade feuds 

Predictably, European importers and consumers tend to urge for restraint in the use of trade-defence instruments (TDIs), whereas EU producers see them as an effective tool in the fight against "unfair trade practices" and oppose any loosening of the current rules. 

Supporters of TDIs often view them as the only means currently available to the EU for addressing predatory trade practices by non-EU companies. They point out that in certain countries, particularly in China – the world’s biggest target for anti-dumping measures – state interference makes it necessary to maintain TDIs. 

Opponents of the EU's trade defence system say that, although TDIs could be legitimate if they were really used to remedy abusive behaviour, generally the sole aim is to protect outdated and uncompetitive industries. They say that imposing TDIs goes against the interests of consumers and those industries that have succeeded in modernising and remaining competitive. 

They are especially critical of the practice of determining whether a country is dumping goods on EU markets by comparing its production to an "analogue country", which often fails to present any similarities with the economy under investigation. This was an issue in the EU-China shoe dispute, where the Chinese shoe industry was compared with Brazil's in order to determine whether China was exporting its shoes at below-cost prices. 

Despite their disagreements, both supporters and opponents tend to agree that EU investigations could benefit from greater transparency. 

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said: "The use of trade-defence instruments cover a minute proportion of the value of EU imports (less than half of 1%), but they play an important political and economic role in enabling us to stand up against unfair trade. Effective action against dumping has helped safeguard tens of thousands of European workers and helps maintain the public's belief in free trade." 

However, he warned: "We need to be sure that our trade defence instruments and our use of them take account of the new realities of globalisation." 

He stressed that he is "not committed a priori to any reform of the system – far less to a radical overhaul", he nevertheless underlined the need for the consultation in order to highlight areas that require further attention: "A system that doesn't work, or one in which solidarity and consensus are under strain, risks becoming inoperable. And that doesn't serve anybody's interests." 

Ernest-Antoine Seillière, president of UNICE (the Confederation of European Business), insisted that the review "should clearly underline the legitimacy of trade defence policy to counter dumping and government subsidies that harm European producers". The Confederation also believes that the EU must take this opportunity to "press for improvements to WTO anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules" to ensure a level playing field for European industry against major emerging countries such as China and India, which are often in "blatant violation of WTO rules". 

A group of European sectoral federations, including the chemicals industry body CEFIC and Eurometaux, clearly spoke out against the review, stating: "We do not agree on embarking on possible reforms that would, in fact, twist the operation of [trade defence] instruments towards objectives which they are not meant to pursue."

Indeed, they pointed out: TDI must primarily address injury caused to European producers from unfair trade practices and already sufficiently "balance the needs of Community producers and consumers when assessing antidumping measures". 

Eurocommerce, which represents the retail, wholesale and international trade sectors in Europe, urged the EU to undertake a complete overhaul of its "old-fashioned and overly politicised trade 'defence' system that does no longer live up to the reality of a global business environment", adding: "In particular, the anti-dumping instrument must be rebalanced in order to better reconcile the interests of Community traders, consumers and producers.” 

Jim Murray, director of the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) said: "It is essential to put consumers at the heart of trade policy, and the Commission’s review should strive to achieve this. Until proper weight is given to consumers’ welfare, it is unwise to start new anti-dumping investigations."