(AGENPARL) – BRUXELLES gio 23 giugno 2022
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION |
on EU-India future trade and investment cooperation
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the joint statement adopted at the EU-India leaders’ meeting held in Porto on 8 May 2021,
– having regard to the joint statement and the roadmap to 2025 for an EU-India strategic partnership adopted at the 15th EU-India summit on 15 July 2020, and to the other joint statements adopted in the fields of counter-terrorism, climate and energy, urbanisation, migration and mobility, and the water partnership,
– having regard to the first ever High-Level Dialogues on Trade and Investment held in February and April 2021 between the Executive Vice-President of the Commission and the Indian Minister for Commerce and Industry,
– having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 20 November 2018 entitled ‘Elements for an EU strategy on India’ (JOIN(2018)0028) and the corresponding Council conclusions of 10 December 2018,
– having regard to the Council decisions of 19 April 2007 on a negotiating mandate concerning trade and investment negotiations with India and of 14 July 2011 on a mandate concerning trade and investment negotiations with India: negotiating directives for trade and investment negotiations,
– having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 16 September 2021 entitled ‘The EU strategy for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ (JOIN(2021)0024),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 18 February 2021 entitled ‘Trade Policy Review – An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy’ (COM(2021)0066),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/947 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe[1],
– having regard to its resolutions of 13 September 2017 on EU political relations with India[2] and of 21 January 2021 on connectivity and EU-Asia relations[3],
– having regard to its recommendation of 29 April 2021 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning EU-India relations[4],
– having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal[5],
– having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2021 on the trade-related aspects and implications of COVID-19[6],
– having regard to the joint motion for a resolution of 29 January 2020 on India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019,
– having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0193/2022),
A. whereas the EU and India convened a leaders’ meeting in May 2021 following their commitment to convene regularly at the highest level and strengthen their strategic partnership with a view to enhancing economic and political cooperation;
B. whereas the EU and India, as the world’s two largest democracies, share strong political, economic, social and cultural ties; whereas, however, bilateral trade relations have not yet reached their full potential;
C. whereas EU and Indian leaders affirmed their determination to preserve and promote effective multilateralism and a rules-based multilateral order with the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core;
D. whereas India abstained during the 11th emergency special session of the UN General Assembly on the resolution of 24 March 2022 entitled ‘Humanitarian consequences of the aggression against Ukraine, while 140 countries voted in favour;
E. whereas the EU is India’s third-largest trading partner and leading foreign investor, while India is the EU’s ninth-largest trading partner and only accounted for less than 2.1 % of its total trade in goods in 2021; whereas there is untapped potential for stronger, deeper and mutually beneficial economic cooperation, as long as European standards are protected, which could lead to the creation of new jobs and increased opportunities for both partners;
F. whereas the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA), including the Trade in Goods Agreement, the Trade in Services Agreement and the Investment Agreement, has existed since 2003;
G. whereas the EU’s strategic framework for India vested in the EU-India Strategic Partnership, its Global Strategy, its Strategy on India, its Strategy for EU-Asia Connectivity, its India-EU Connectivity Partnership, the India-EU Human Rights Dialogue and the EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific have highlighted the vital importance of cooperating with India on the EU’s global agenda; whereas on 25 April 2022 the EU and India agreed to set up a Trade and Technology Council;
H. whereas India still faces important challenges in relation to sustainable development, human rights and the environment, notably with respect to the situation of minorities and fundamental freedoms; whereas Parliament voiced its concern on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), which excludes Muslims from citizenship protection;
I. whereas India has not yet ratified all the fundamental International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, namely the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No 98); whereas the workforce of the informal economy of India still accounts for more than 90 % of the entire workforce; whereas this leaves millions of people without social insurance and leading a life in uncertainty[7];
1. Calls on the Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European External Action Service to pursue all efforts to improve and deepen the relationship with India, a strategic partner of the EU; reiterates the need for a deeper partnership based on the shared values of freedom, democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, good governance, equality, respect for human rights, labour rights, women’s rights and gender equality, a commitment to promoting an inclusive, coherent and rules-based global order, effective multilateralism and sustainable development, fighting climate change, and promoting peace and stability in the world;
2. Welcomes the EU-India agreement on launching a Trade and Technology Council, which will strengthen our strategic partnership, and pledges support for its implementation; considers this new mechanism a meaningful forum to address new challenges in the area of trade, technology and security, and underlines the importance of boosting trade in technology, paying special attention to technologies combating climate change;
3. Recalls that EU-India trade increased by more than 70 % between 2009 and 2019 and that both parties share a common interest in fostering closer and deeper economic ties; recognises that India is an important partner for the EU to diversify its supply chains; further recognises that there are sensitivities on both sides, but believes that these could be addressed to create a win-win situation for both partners;
4. Points out that the ‘farm to fork’ strategy includes the obligation to reduce the use of pesticides by 50 % by 2030 and to increase the proportion of agricultural land under organic farming to 25 %;
5. Expects a swift follow-up to the EU-India leaders’ meeting of May 2021 in order to openly address values-based cooperation at the highest level in matters of trade and investment; welcomes both partners’ readiness to work towards the conclusion of an ambitious, values-based, balanced, comprehensive and mutually beneficial trade agreement, as well as a stand-alone investment protection agreement and an agreement on geographical indications;
6. Stresses the economic and strategic importance of this agreement, which will only succeed if it manages to progressively align the EU and India towards a shared agenda and values in relation to sustainable development in order to generate shared prosperity, growth and employment, boost competitiveness, fight poverty, make progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promote the fight against climate change and the implementation of the Paris Agreement, support workers’ rights and fundamental freedoms, and promote gender equality and women’s empowerment, and if it explicitly takes into account the outcome of the ongoing trade and sustainable development (TSD) review process;
7. Notes that the EU is India’s largest trading partner in the agri-food sector; recalls that the agricultural sector is a significant part of the Indian economy, and accounts for 41 % of Indian employment; highlights the sensitivity, but also the potential, of certain agricultural sectors in both the EU and India; stresses that any greater market access for agricultural products should not result in giving either party an unfair competitive advantage; draws attention to the need to ensure that agri-food imports from India meet EU health and safety standards; considers that the EU should support India in helping its farmers reduce the use of pesticides; stresses the need for the EU and India to cooperate closely to address the repercussions on food security of the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine;
8. Points out that one of the objectives of the future EU-India trade and investment agreements is to strengthen the economic, trade and investment relationship between the EU and India in full compliance with internationally recognised human rights and environmental and labour standards and agreements, to create a sound, transparent, open, non-discriminatory and predictable regulatory and business environment for companies on both sides, and to unlock the untapped potential of two-way economic cooperation between the EU and India;
9. Reaffirms its condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation; acknowledges the neutral position of India since its independence; points out that the EU and India are willing to work together for a prosperous and peaceful world, yet regrets India’s hesitancy to condemn the Russian Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine; underlines the importance of democracies working together and aligning on core areas, and especially on fundamental values and open, rules-based and sustainable trade;
10. Considers that the existing negotiating mandate for a trade agreement, a separate investment protection agreement and an agreement on geographical indications is comprehensive and broad enough for negotiations to restart, and should be interpreted in line with modern standards; takes the view that it is necessary to ensure that the prospective comprehensive trade agreement has environmental and human rights standards as core elements and contains as integral parts thereof a dedicated chapter for SMEs, a dedicated digital trade chapter, a dedicated chapter on raw materials to increase market access, and an ambitious and enforceable TSD chapter aligned with the Paris Agreement; believes, furthermore, that the agreement should include provisions on sustainable food systems and on gender;
11. Calls on the Indian Government to present a roadmap towards the ratification of the two remaining fundamental ILO conventions, Nos 87 and 98, and believes that their principles are to be duly and properly implemented in a timely manner; stresses that given the informal nature of the Indian labour market there are many challenges related to the implementation and enforcement of international labour standards; encourages the Commission to ensure that the fundamental ILO principles are applied in the prospective trade agreement; calls on the Commission to ensure that the prospective trade agreement between the EU and India is in line with the European Green Deal, the ‘farm to fork’ strategy and COP26;
12. Agrees with EU and Indian leaders that in order to maintain the momentum for restarting the negotiations, it is imperative to find solutions to long-standing market access issues; encourages the negotiators, therefore, to find swift solutions to the long-standing market access issues across both governance levels and sectors (e.g. cars, car parts, agriculture, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) irritants, public procurement, non-tariff barriers such as quality control orders, certification, compliance with international standards and localisation requirements), while not compromising on content in favour of a speedy conclusion;
13. Encourages the negotiators to make good progress in achieving a comprehensive, mutually beneficial, state-of-the-art, WTO-compatible and rules-based free trade agreement, giving priority to areas conducive to sustainable growth and addressing inequalities and the digital and green just transitions, as follows:
i. the comprehensive elimination of tariffs and quotas on a reciprocal basis, while paying attention to sensitive products and ensuring that reductions will not be compensated by an increase in domestic taxes and levies, including at state level, on imported products;
ii. expedited, more transparent and less onerous customs, as well as a comprehensive single-window electronic certification process and the removal of disproportionate import bans;
iii. transparent and expeditious market access approval, regionalisation and audit procedures, underpinned by scientifically justified SPS import measures, by international standards and by disciplines that go beyond the WTO SPS Agreement; the agreement should seek to ensure SPS-related cooperation and the quick approval by India of all the existing and future market access applications, including those delayed by trial shipments and certification issues;
iv. the elimination of an increasing number of technical barriers to trade, including a review of barriers to ICT, medical devices, toys, alcoholic beverages, polished diamonds, agricultural products, food and steel; the agreement should seek compliance with the international standards of the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU), go beyond the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, ensure that there is no duplication of testing and certification, and streamline licensing schemes, quality control orders and clinical investigations;
v. a comprehensive chapter on public procurement at all levels of governance in order to enforce the principles of transparency and non-discrimination in public procurement through effective remedy procedures; calls, in this respect, for India to accede to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and to prohibit discriminatory ‘buy national’ practices, such as certain practices related to ‘Make in India’ and ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (‘Self-reliant India’), since they aim to favour domestic manufacturing and discourage imports and significantly affect market access for EU companies;
vi. ensuring a level playing field in subsidies and the commercial practices of state-owned enterprises;
vii. a comprehensive chapter on high-level protection for intellectual property rights (IPR), focusing inter alia on cooperation provisions and technology transfers, which should facilitate a non-restrictive and swift patent application process and the rapid and effective enforcement of IPR standards including, the protection of geographical indications (GIs); however, special attention must be paid to India’s ability to produce affordable generic medicines for domestic health needs or for exports to other developing countries in need, in line with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement on Public Health;
viii. a dedicated chapter on SMEs in order to take into account SMEs’ specific needs and provide legal certainty; underlines the need for a business-friendly regulatory environment for SMEs, including harmonised and simplified customs procedures and reduced administrative and regulatory burdens in order to overcome all tariff and non-tariff barriers preventing SMEs from entering the Indian market; highlights the need to facilitate information sharing on market access, trade regulations, trade procedures and rules of origin;
ix. the inclusion of an ambitious TSD chapter guaranteeing values-based cooperation in trade and investment and promoting the highest international standards on labour rights, including strong action to eliminate child labour and forced labour, ensure environmental protection and promote gender equality, inspired by the most recent and modern EU free trade agreements; underlines that sustainability needs to be transversally reflected in the agreement through enforceable provisions taking into account the TSD review;
x. the establishment of modern, SME-friendly, harmonised and reciprocal rules of origin, in line with the EU’s most modern and comprehensive free trade agreements;
xi. the inclusion of the newly presented circular economy action plan to ensure less waste and consumer empowerment, making sustainable products the norm and leading global efforts towards a circular economy;
xii. the prohibition of non-automatic import or export licensing procedures, except in justified cases;
xiii. the removal of all discriminatory and disproportionate obstacles to establishment in both the services sector and the manufacturing sector, as well as to the supply of cross-border services, in order to ensure a level playing field between EU and Indian service providers;
xiv. enhanced digital trade rules grounded in EU standards and global practices; considers, in particular, that 5G must not be deployed using mandatory technology transfer such as the forced disclosure of source codes, algorithms and encryption keys;
xv. the confirmation of both sides’ rights and obligations under the WTO agreements (anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards), the exploration of areas of common interest that go beyond these WTO standards, and the inclusion of a temporary bilateral safeguard mechanism;
xvi. a guarantee of good governance and the rule of law and a solution to the obstacles created by legal uncertainty;
14. Recalls that SMEs are the backbone of the socio-economic development of India and account for 45 % of the country’s total industrial production; believes that India and the EU should continue to work towards ensuring a conducive and stable business environment for SMEs, facilitating their access to international markets and allowing them to take full advantage of trade opportunities; welcomes, in this regard, the setting up of the India IP SME Helpdesk, which provides SMEs with first-line support on how to protect and enforce their IPR, and calls on the Commission to build on this initiative to create further digital platforms that would help to reduce trade costs and administrative burdens, while increasing SMEs’ participation in international trade;
15. Asks both parties to consider providing interoperable data flows between the jurisdictions of India and the EU in total compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)[8] on the basis of an assessment; invites India to align its new Data Protection Bill with the highest internationally recognised standards on data protection and privacy rules; invites India to join the EU initiative on international data protection standards;
16. Invites the EU’s negotiating team, as well as the EU institutions and the Member States, to make best use of India’s commitment to multilateralism and an international rules-based trading order and calls on India to play a constructive role to secure meaningful results at the WTO’s 12th and 13th Ministerial Conferences; applauds the EU and India’s co-sponsored reform proposal for the WTO Dispute Settlement Body and calls on India to join the multi-party interim appeal arbitration arrangement; commends the commitment of EU and Indian leaders to enhancing coordination on global economic governance, notably in the WTO and G20; expects to be briefed about the results of the EU-India Senior Officials’ Dialogue, which aims to deepen bilateral cooperation on WTO issues under the auspices of the High-Level Dialogues on Trade and Investment;
17. Regrets that uncertainties remain for EU investors, notably as a result of India’s decision to unilaterally terminate all its bilateral investment treaties in 2016;
18. Takes note of both sides’ readiness to negotiate a stand-alone investment protection agreement, which would increase legal certainty for investors on both sides and further strengthen bilateral trade relations, attracting more EU investments in India, and upholds the possibility for parties to exhaust domestic remedies; recommends working towards the achievement of common and mutually beneficial objectives in these areas in order to foster sustainable economic growth and innovation; emphasises that such an agreement should, inter alia, contain protections against origin-based discrimination, unlawful expropriation, the denial of justice, fundamental breaches of due process, manifest arbitrariness, targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds and abusive treatment; proposes carrying out a comprehensive impact assessment before the end of the negotiations; welcomes Indian investments in Europe as a driver of economic dynamism, increased competitiveness and diversified production;
19. Reaffirms that an investment protection agreement could be an adequate stepping stone for further strengthening bilateral trade relations; encourages the negotiators to agree on the founding of a multilateral investment court, and on a dedicated EU-India investment court system as a temporary solution with a view to the founding of a multilateral investment court, to which both the EU and India should adhere;
20. Welcomes the leaders’ commitment to concluding a separate agreement on GIs, be it a stand-alone agreement or integrated within the comprehensive trade agreement; considers such an agreement a priority for the EU farming and agri-food sectors in order to protect EU GIs, calls on the Commission to work towards creating a comprehensive list of EU GIs;
21. Stresses the need for the EU to champion human rights and the right to food as a central principle and priority of food systems and as a fundamental tool to transform food systems; calls for the EU to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas and ensure that the most marginalised have access to nutritious foods;
22. Notes that while India’s legal order allows the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the purpose of processing them into food and feed, its GMO regime is similar to the EU’s in terms of rigorousness and strictness;
23. Notes the importance of progressing decisively in banning all antibiotics and veterinary drugs that do not conform to the Codex Alimentarius food standards;
24. Stresses that the EU must ensure that, under the cooperation agreement with India, the level of mutual cooperation be improved and that all EU economic, social, environmental, health, safety and quality standards be respected by both parties;
25. Urges the Commission to carry out a study of the possible economic impact of this agreement, bearing in mind that agriculture and stockbreeding in India are not subject to the EU regulations that increase the costs of production in Europe, which may lead to unfair competition, as has already been the case with other agreements with non-EU countries;
26. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the text of the agreement, as consistently done in previous EU free trade agreements, protects the EU’s common single market by preventing:
(i) the importation of non-authorised GMOs in foodstuffs, feed and seeds;
(ii) the importation of agricultural products and foodstuffs with higher levels of pesticide residues than allowed for in EU law, through the systemic application of EU rules on maximum residue limits;
(iii) the importation of agricultural products and foodstuffs produced using hormonal preparations banned in the EU;
(iv) the introduction of antimicrobial-resistant strains of microbes;
27. Recalls that, on 14 December 2021, India incurred WTO disapproval on account of the enormous subsidies granted to its sugar production and export activities; calls therefore for the suspension of the 10 000 MT CXL quota for Indian sugar, as a review of subsidies that breach WTO rules is not being envisaged; requests that the upcoming EU-India trade negotiations make sure that WTO-incompatible sugar subsidies be removed;
28. Welcomes the establishment of two joint working groups to ramp up regulatory cooperation on goods and services, including on green and digital technologies and on resilient supply chains, in consultation with representatives of different stakeholders on an equal footing; stresses the crucial role of the High-Level Dialogues on Trade and Investment for ensuring good progress overall, including on long-standing market access issues; expects to be briefed promptly and regularly about the results of these dialogues;
29. Calls on the negotiators, as a matter of priority, to agree on the establishment of a bilateral ex ante and ex post consultation platform between the EU and India designed to facilitate discussions and consultations in advance of any new measures or subsidies that could negatively affect trade or investment; believes that such a platform should facilitate dialogue with representatives of a wide range of stakeholders, including social partners and civil society organisations; takes the view that business and industry associations should be able to bring any new trade or investment irritants to the attention of the secretariat of this platform; believes that the platform should eventually be made an integral part of the governance framework of the future trade agreement;
30. Considers that the governance of a potential EU-India free trade agreement should entail a joint committee providing joint monitoring, structured dialogue and oversight by the European Parliament and both chambers of the Parliament of India; stresses that the involvement of civil society in monitoring the implementation of the agreement is crucial, and calls for the swift establishment of domestic advisory groups following the entry into force of the agreement and for the balanced representation of business organisations, trade unions and civil society, including independent organisations from the labour and environmental sectors;
°
° °
31. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the Government and Parliament of India.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (1.3.2022) |
for the Committee on International Trade
on the EU-India future trade and investment cooperation
Rapporteur for opinion: Ivan David
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:
– having regard to the Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO),
– having regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and food stuffs[9],
– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules[10],
– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs,
– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 of 17 October 2018 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, amendments to product specifications, the register of protected names, cancellation of protection and use of symbols, and of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an appropriate system of checks[11],
– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation[12],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007[13],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008[14],
– having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector[15],
– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/273 of 11 December 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the scheme of authorisations for vine plantings, the vineyard register, accompanying documents and certification, the inward and outward register, compulsory declarations, notifications and publication of notified information, and supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the relevant checks and penalties, amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 555/2008, (EC) No 606/2009 and (EC) No 607/2009 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/560[16],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008[17],
– having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1235 of 12 May 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules concerning applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of the registration and the register[18],
– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1236 of 12 May 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks, the opposition procedure, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of the registration, use of symbol and control[19],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91[20],
– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 of 24 March 2021 laying down the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof from which the entry into the Union of animals, germinal products and products of animal origin is permitted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council[21],
– having regard to Annex IX to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, which still does not include India, or list germinal products from India as being authorised for import into the EU,
– having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 18 February 2021 entitled ‘Trade Policy Review – An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy’ (COM(2021)0066),
– having regard to the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel report of 14 December 2021 entitled ‘India – Measures Concerning Sugar and Sugarcane’, particularly its condemnation of India’s sugar subsidies,
– having regard to the political and commercial significance of improving relations with India, a strategic trade partner of the EU, including on agriculture, food and geographical indications, which a free trade agreement will greatly enhance,
A. whereas any potential trade and investment cooperation agreement should include ambitious provisions on an enforceable Trade and Sustainable Development chapter aligned with the Paris Agreement;
B. whereas recognising the fundamental role of India as an EU trading partner and the existing good relations that can be further developed under the future agreement and provide an opportunity for European companies by improving the agricultural trade balance between the EU and India;
1. Recalls that India has been reproached at ILO Ministerial Conferences for non-compliance with ILO conventions, including in the field of agriculture and regrets the unambitious positions adopted by India at the 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26);
2. Recalls that the agricultural sector is a significant part of the Indian economy, and accounts for 41 % of Indian employment; stresses that the poverty rate in rural India is at 25 %, twice that of its urban areas[22]; notes that agriculture, the source of subsistence for almost half of the Indian population, is strongly characterised by outdated production practices that are not in line with European standards;
3. Stresses the need for the EU to champion human rights and the right to food as a central principle and priority of food systems and as a fundamental tool to transform food systems; calls for the EU to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas and ensure that the most marginalised have access to nutritious foods;
4. Notes that while India’s legal order allows the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the purpose of processing them into food and feed, its GMO regime is similar to the EU’s in terms of rigorousness and strictness;
5. Notes the importance of progressing decisively in banning all antibiotics and veterinary drugs that do not conform to the Codex Alimentarius food standards;
6. Draws attention to the fact that India’s legal order seems to impose less stringent restrictions on the agricultural use of hormonal and antimicrobial preparations, while underlining that exports to the EU of products not in compliance with relevant EU rules remain forbidden;
7. Stresses that any greater market access in a free trade agreement for Indian agricultural products should not result in giving Indian companies and multinational corporations involved in trading in Indian agricultural products and foodstuffs an unfair competitive advantage over EU farmers due to lower standards that do not comply with international law; stresses that Indian environmental and labour standards are much less stringent than those of the EU, particularly in the agricultural sector; draws attention to the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, boosting EU-India trade relations and, on the other hand, ensuring full compliance by both parties with EU economic, social, environmental, health, safety and quality standards, with a view to protecting European citizens from agricultural products from non-EU countries that fall short of European standards and preventing unfair competition in the single market;
8. Stresses that the EU must ensure that, under the cooperation agreement with India, the level of mutual cooperation be improved and that all EU economic, social, environmental, health, safety and quality standards be respected by both parties;
9. Calls on the Commission to resume negotiations on a balanced, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with robust commitments on all aspects of sustainability, including the relevant ILO conventions, the decent work agenda, key environmental conventions including the Paris COP21 commitments on climate change and cooperation on animal welfare; stresses that the trade agreement should aim to secure improved market access with a significant reduction in barriers to trade, taking into account sensitive EU products; calls for the introduction of binding mirror measures that would ensure that imported products from India conform with EU single market, health, environmental, labour, climate, animal welfare, high safety and quality standards; insists that the same protection for consumers regardless of the origin of the products be ensured and that the food security of both India and the EU be respected; emphasises that, in line with the Farm to Fork strategy, any future trade agreement between India and the EU should include a dedicated framework on sustainable agri-food systems and products;
10. Draws attention to the need to ensure that imports from India, and especially agri-food products, meet EU health, safety and quality standards, including those relating to the use of hormones, antibiotics and GMOs;
11. Notes that the EU-India agricultural and food trade balance last year reached a deficit of EUR 1.8 billion, while imbalances in agricultural trade remained stable in the last decade; highlights that EU producers should be able to access the Indian market to address this imbalance;
12. Hopes that the future agreement between the EU and India will contain a commitment to ensure greater social and environmental sustainability in the agricultural sector;
13. Calls on the Commission to negotiate a separate agreement on the protection of geographical indications before negotiating an EU-India trade agreement to ensure that India properly recognise and protect all European geographical indications; stresses that the investment agreement between the EU and India should be conditional on the latter; calls on the Commission to work towards creating a comprehensive list of EU geographical indications for inclusion in the EU’s negotiating mandate for the agreement with India, which would enable all Member States that have registered geographical indication products to include as many of their products (i.e. food, beverages and agricultural products) as possible on that list;
14. Urges the Commission to carry out a study of the possible economic impact of this agreement, bearing in mind that agriculture and stockbreeding in India are not subject to the EU regulations that increase the costs of production in Europe, which may lead to unfair competition, as has already been the case with other agreements with non-EU countries;
15. Recalls the existing high value duties that India has imposed on several EU agricultural products (including wine, citrus fruits, olive oil, dairy products and other fruits and vegetables), as well as the high number of non-tariff barriers that India has applied to the import of EU agricultural products; highlights that these protectionist policies regulating exports and constantly imposing import restrictions pose technical barriers to trade; notes therefore that the trade agreement is a real opportunity to gain access to this major and rapidly growing market and calls on the Commission to negotiate a reduction or removal of the existing tariff for EU agricultural products;
16. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the text of the agreement, as consistently done in previous EU free trade agreements, protects the EU’s common single market by preventing:
(v) the importation of non-authorised GMOs in foodstuffs, feed and seeds;
(vi) the importation of agricultural products and foodstuffs with higher levels of pesticide residues than allowed for in EU law, through the systemic application of EU rules on maximum residue limits;
(vii) the importation of agricultural products and foodstuffs produced using hormonal preparations banned in the EU;
(viii) the introduction of antimicrobial-resistant strains of microbes;
17. Recalls that, on 14 December 2021, India incurred WTO disapproval on account of the enormous subsidies granted to its sugar production and export activities; calls therefore for the suspension of the 10 000 MT CXL quota for Indian sugar, as a review of subsidies that breach WTO rules is not being envisaged; requests that the upcoming EU-India trade negotiations make sure that WTO-incompatible sugar subsidies be removed;
18. Considers that the EU should support developing countries to help them reduce the imprudent use of pesticides and promote other methods to protect plants and fishery resources; notes, in this respect, that agri-food products from non-EU countries must be subject to the same requirements as domestic producers, including zero-tolerance of residues of substances meeting the cut-off criteria.
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Date adopted |
1.3.2022 |
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
40 6 1 |
||
Members present for the final vote |
Mazaly Aguilar, Clara Aguilera, Atidzhe Alieva-Veli, Álvaro Amaro, Attila Ara-Kovács, Carmen Avram, Adrian-Dragoş Benea, Benoît Biteau, Mara Bizzotto, Daniel Buda, Asger Christensen, Angelo Ciocca, Ivan David, Paolo De Castro, Jérémy Decerle, Salvatore De Meo, Herbert Dorfmann, Luke Ming Flanagan, Dino Giarrusso, Francisco Guerreiro, Martin Häusling, Martin Hlaváček, Krzysztof Jurgiel, Jarosław Kalinowski, Elsi Katainen, Hélène Laporte, Camilla Laureti, Gilles Lebreton, Norbert Lins, Colm Markey, Marlene Mortler, Ulrike Müller, Maria Noichl, Juozas Olekas, Eugenia Rodríguez Palop, Bronis Ropė, Anne Sander, Petri Sarvamaa, Simone Schmiedtbauer, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Marc Tarabella, Veronika Vrecionová, Sarah Wiener, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez |
|||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Zbigniew Kuźmiuk, Alin Mituța, Pina Picierno |
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
40 |
+ |
ECR |
Mazaly Aguilar, Krzysztof Jurgiel, Zbigniew Kuźmiuk, Veronika Vrecionová |
ID |
Mara Bizzotto, Angelo Ciocca |
NI |
Dino Giarrusso |
PPE |
Álvaro Amaro, Daniel Buda, Salvatore De Meo, Herbert Dorfmann, Jarosław Kalinowski, Norbert Lins, Colm Markey, Marlene Mortler, Anne Sander, Petri Sarvamaa, Simone Schmiedtbauer, Annie Schreijer-Pierik, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez |
Renew |
Atidzhe Alieva-Veli, Asger Christensen, Martin Hlaváček, Elsi Katainen, Alin Mituța, Ulrike Müller |
S&D |
Clara Aguilera, Attila Ara-Kovács, Carmen Avram, Adrian-Dragoş Benea, Paolo De Castro, Camilla Laureti, Juozas Olekas, Pina Picierno, Marc Tarabella |
Verts/ALE |
Benoît Biteau, Francisco Guerreiro, Martin Häusling, Bronis Ropė, Sarah Wiener |
6 |
– |
ID |
Ivan David, Hélène Laporte, Gilles Lebreton |
Renew |
Jérémy Decerle |
The Left |
Luke Ming Flanagan, Eugenia Rodríguez Palop |
1 |
0 |
S&D |
Maria Noichl |
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
– : against
0 : abstention
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE |
Date adopted |
16.6.2022 |
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
30 2 4 |
||
Members present for the final vote |
Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Geert Bourgeois, Saskia Bricmont, Udo Bullmann, Jordi Cañas, Raphaël Glucksmann, Christophe Hansen, Heidi Hautala, Danuta Maria Hübner, Karin Karlsbro, Danilo Oscar Lancini, Bernd Lange, Sara Matthieu, Emmanuel Maurel, Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Catharina Rinzema, Massimiliano Salini, Helmut Scholz, Sven Simon, Dominik Tarczyński, Kathleen Van Brempt, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, Jörgen Warborn, Iuliu Winkler, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez |
|||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Mazaly Aguilar, Marek Belka, Claudiu Manda, David McAllister, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Pedro Silva Pereira, Nicolae Ştefănuță |
|||
Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote |
César Luena, Fulvio Martusciello, Johan Van Overtveldt, Lucia Vuolo |
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE |
30 |
+ |
ECR |
Mazaly Aguilar, Geert Bourgeois, Dominik Tarczyński, Johan Van Overtveldt |
ID |
Danilo Oscar Lancini |
NI |
Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó |
PPE |
Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou, Christophe Hansen, Danuta Maria Hübner, David McAllister, Fulvio Martusciello, Massimiliano Salini, Sven Simon, Lucia Vuolo, Jörgen Warborn, Iuliu Winkler, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez |
RENEW |
Jordi Cañas, Karin Karlsbro, Catharina Rinzema, Nicolae Ştefănuță, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne |
S&D |
Marek Belka, Udo Bullmann, Bernd Lange, César Luena, Claudiu Manda, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Pedro Silva Pereira, Kathleen Van Brempt |
2 |
– |
THE LEFT |
Emmanuel Maurel, Helmut Scholz |
4 |
0 |
S&D |
Raphaël Glucksmann |
VERTS/ALE |
Saskia Bricmont, Heidi Hautala, Sara Matthieu |
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
– : against
0 : abstention
[1] OJ L 209, 14.6.2021, p. 1.
[2] OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 48.
[3] OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 117.
[4] OJ C 506, 15.12.2021, p. 109.
[5] OJ C 270, 7.7.2021, p. 2.
[6] OJ C 99, 1.3.2022, p. 10.
[8] OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
[9] OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
[10] OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 17.
[11] OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 46.
[12] OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.
[13] OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.
[14] OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549.
[15] OJ L 170, 30.6.2008, p. 1.
[16] OJ L 58, 28.2.2018, p. 1.
[17] OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 1.
[18] OJ L 270, 29.7.2021, p. 1
[19] OJ L 270, 29.7.2021, p. 10.
[20] OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 14.
[21] OJ L 114, 31.3.2021, p. 1.
[22] Policy Department for External Relations, Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, at the request of the Committee on International Trade, ‘EU-India Trade Relations – assessment and perspectives’, 2021, p. 10.
Fonte/Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2022-0193_EN.html