Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα exports. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα exports. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Σάββατο, Αυγούστου 05, 2017

U.N. Security Council passes tough new sanctions on North Korea

U.N. Security Council
The United Nations Security Council voted Saturday to enact tough new sanctions on North Korea over its continued pursuit of long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.

UN to Vote Saturday on US-Drafted Resolution to Cut North Korean Exports

The UN’s main body
The UN’s main body will convene at 3:00 p.m. (19:00GMT) in New York to hold talks on "Non-proliferation/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea," according to its daily program.

Δευτέρα, Σεπτεμβρίου 08, 2014

EU mulls over supportive measures on fisheries sector to combat Russian trade ban

The European Union (EU) has planned to provide financial support to fisheries sector, together with a proposal of shifting unused fishing quotas to 2015 to counter Russian trade ban, an EU official said on Monday.

According to a letter, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Maria Damanaki reassured the Council and the European Parliament that the European Commission stands ready to support the European fisheries sector.


Damanaki called upon the EU governments concerned by the ban to make use "as quickly as possible" of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which can provide financial help to producer organisations who are unable to sell their products to Russia.

This aid enables them to store the unsold products until new markets have been found. She underlined that no approval by the European Commission is necessary to unlock these storage funds.

Damanaki also pointed to flexibility rules which allow Member States to carry over up to 10 percent of their fishing quotas to the following year. According to the letter, she has instructed her services to examine the possibility of going beyond the 10 percent quota flexibility.

Russia imposed imports ban of certain fisheries products from the EU on August 7, composing one part of the EU and Ukraine trade war due to Ukraine crisis.

Russia is the EU's 6th export market for fisheries products. In 2013, EU exports of fisheries products to Russia represented 5 percent, or 199 million euros, of total EU fisheries exports. In 2013, fisheries products represented 0.2 percent of the EU's overall exports to Russia.

The EU is due to announce its new sanctions on Russia later Monday, the European Commission said on Monday, although a ceasefire is generally taking hold in eastern Ukraine.

Responding to EU's upcoming tighter sanctions, Russian Foreign Ministry said last week that reactions will certainly be made by Russia if they are implemented.

Sources: Xinhua - globaltimes.cn
8/9/14
----------------------------
***Russian trade ban: Commissioner Damanaki ready to support EU fisheries sector with financial help, quota flexibility
European Commission
Press release
Brussels, 8 September 2014

In the light of Russia’s trade ban on certain fisheries products which hit the European fisheries sector this summer, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, has today reassured the Council and the European Parliament that the European Commission stands ready to support the European fisheries sector. In a letter addressed to Italian Minister Maurizio Martina and the Chair of the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee, Alain Cadec, Commissioner Damanaki outlined that the EU can provide financial support to the sector as well as the possibility of shifting unused fishing quotas to 2015.
In her letter, Commissioner Damanaki called upon the EU governments concerned by the ban to make use “as quickly as possible” of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which can provide financial help to producer organisations who are unable to sell their products to Russia. This aid enables them to store the unsold products until new markets have been found. She underlined that no approval by the European Commission is necessary to unlock these storage funds.
Commissioner Damanaki also pointed to flexibility rules which allow Member States to carry over up to 10% of their fishing quotas to the following year. She underlined that, given the current circumstances, she has instructed her services to examine the possibility go beyond the 10% quota flexibility. The Commissioner said that she could take a positive stance on this option, under the condition that scientific examination confirms that such a proposal would not undermine long term sustainability.
Background
Following Russia’s announcement on 7 August to ban imports of certain fisheries products from the European Union, the European Commission is working closely with Member States authorities to gather evidence on the impact of the Russian trade measures in the fisheries sector and to outline the available support to the sectors affected by the ban. The fisheries products affected by the ban are live, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, in brine and smoked fish, molluscs and crustaceans. The main Member States exporting these products to Russia in 2013 were Denmark, Latvia, UK, Ireland, Estonia, Spain and France.
In 2013, the total export value of the banned EU fisheries products was close to EUR 144 million, which represents 2% of total value of the EU's fish and aquaculture annual product.
Russia is the EU's 6th export market for fisheries products. In 2013, EU exports of fisheries products to Russia represented 5%, or EUR 199 million, of total EU fisheries exports. In 2013, fisheries products represented 0.2% of the EU’s overall exports to Russia.....................http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-980_en.htm?locale=en
8/9/14

Πέμπτη, Αυγούστου 07, 2014

WTO Appellate Body rules against Chinese restrictions on access to rare earths and other raw materials (E.C.)

European Commission, Press release, Brussels, 7 August 2014:

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) today ruled in the EU’s favour. It confirmed the findings made by a Panel in March 2014 that China’s export restrictions on rare earth, as well as tungsten and molybdenum, are in breach of WTO rules. Backing the claims of the EU and its co-complainants, the US and Japan, the WTO found that China’s export duties and quotas were not justified for reasons of environmental protection or conservation policy.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht qualified the ruling as “another milestone in the EU’s efforts to ensure fair access to much-needed raw materials for its industries”. “This ruling sends a clear signal that export restrictions cannot be used to protect or promote domestic industries at the expense of foreign competitors. I now look forward to China swiftly bringing its export regime in line with international rules, as it did with other raw materials under the previous WTO ruling,” Commissioner said. 

In 2012, China lost another WTO case, brought jointly by the EU, US and Mexico, on export restrictions on raw materials. It subsequently lifted those restrictions. However, it did not lift similar measures, export quotas and duties, applying to other raw materials, such as tungsten, molybdenum and rare earths. The EU and its co-complainants were therefore left with no option but to use the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism again. 

China has argued that its export restrictions on rare earths are part of its conservation policy. But the WTO’s position today is clear: export restrictions cannot be imposed to conserve exhaustible natural resources if the domestic production or consumption of the same raw materials is not restricted at the same time for the same purpose.
Neither the complainants nor the panel contest China’s right to put in place conservation policies. However, as the WTO clarified, the sovereign right of a country over its natural resources does not allow it to control international markets or the global distribution of raw materials. A WTO Member may decide on the level or pace at which it uses its resources but once raw materials have been extracted, they are subject to WTO trade rules. The extracting country cannot impose restrictions only on foreign users. 

Background
The raw materials involved in this case are several rare earths, as well as tungsten and molybdenum. They have a wide range of uses in hi-tech and green goods, automotive and machinery manufacturing, chemicals, steel and non-ferrous metal industries.
Chinese export restrictions have been mainly export duties or export quotas, as well as additional requirements and procedures for exporters. They create serious disadvantages for foreign industries by artificially increasing China’s export prices and driving up world prices. Such restrictions also artificially lower China’s domestic prices for raw materials. As they increase domestic supplies. This gives China’s local industries a competitive advantage and puts pressure on foreign producers to move their operations and technologies to China.
The EU, together with the US and Japan, launched a WTO dispute settlement case in March 2012. Initial consultations with China did not bring an amicable solution. As a result, the WTO set up a panel in June 2012. The Panel report was issued on 26 March 2014 and was full victory for the EU and its co-complainants. China appealed the report on 25 April 2014. The reports will be adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body within 30 days and China will have to comply with the ruling immediately or within a reasonable period of time that it can request for implementation..................http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-912_en.htm?locale=en
7/8/14
--
-
Related:

Δευτέρα, Μαΐου 26, 2014

Iraqi Kurds slam Baghdad legal action over oil shipment

Iraq's Kurdish region slammed legal action filed by the central government against Turkey, saying Sunday it was illegitimate and likely to fail, the latest in worsening ties between Baghdad and Kurdistan.
 
The Kurdish Ministry of Natural Resources statement came just days after Baghdad's Oil Ministry filed a request for arbitration against Ankara at the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce after crude from Kurdistan was exported to international markets via a Turkish port.


Relations between Iraq and its Kurdish region, and between Baghdad and Ankara, were already fragile and are likely to chill further over the row, with the latest shipments flying in the face of the Iraqi government's insistence that it has the sole right to sell its prized natural resources.


"The MOO (Ministry of Oil) is, with its behaviour, isolating itself ... (and) potentially damaging Iraq's petroleum industry and Iraq's petroleum reserves," the ministry statement said.

"The MOO is also ... now prepared to damage Iraq's relations with Turkey and other friends of Iraq."
The statement labelled the arbitration request "self-defeating" and "illegitimate", saying it would "not allow hollow threats from the MOO to interfere with the KRG's (Kurdistan Regional Government's) oil export regime."

The dispute between Baghdad and Kurdish authorities in Arbil centres around interpretations of Iraq's constitution, with both sides insisting they are behaving legally.

The central government insists it has the sole right to export Iraqi crude, describes Kurdish sales as "smuggling" and also says contracts between Arbil and foreign energy firms without its expressed consent are illegal.

But the row took on a new dimension after Turkey confirmed shipments of oil pumped from the autonomous northern Iraqi region and stored in Turkey's Mediterranean port of Ceyhan began on Thursday.............[hurriyetdailynews.com]

25/5/14

Τετάρτη, Μαρτίου 26, 2014

WTO confirms China’s export restrictions on rare earths and other raw materials incompatible with WTO rules. -European Commission

A World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel today confirmed that China’s export duties and quotas imposed on rare earths, as well as other two raw materials, tungsten and molybdenum, are incompatible with China’s WTO obligations. The report released today concludes the dispute settlement panel proceedings launched jointly by the EU, US and Japan in March 2012.
Which raw materials are at issue in this case?
Rare earths are 17 chemical elements in the periodic table, specifically 15 lanthanides (lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium), as well as scandium and yttrium.

Rare earths are used in virtually all high technology applications which we use in our daily life: computers, cameras, phones, TVs, energy-efficient bulbs, etc. There is also at least a thousand car parts that use rare earths.

More specifically, rare earths are used to produce highly efficient magnets, metal alloys, phosphors, optical material, batteries, ceramics and special abrasive powders. These are, in turn, key components in many products such as wind power turbines, energy-efficient products, flat screens and displays (LED, LCD, plasma), hard drives, camera lenses, glass applications, industrial batteries, and medical or water treatment equipment, to name just a few.
  • China is a monopoly supplier of rare earths with more than 90% share of world production.
  • Tungsten and molybdenum - two other substances involved in the case - are also crucial materials for European industrial production.
Tungsten is a very hard metal used in cemented carbide and high-speed steel tools. It is used in lighting, electronics, power engineering, coating and joining technology, the automotive and aerospace industries and medical technology. China is by far the largest tungsten producer in the world, accounting for about 90% of total world production.
Molybdenum is a metallic element which is mainly used as an alloying agent for making alloys stronger and more heat-resistant due to molybdenum's high melting temperature. The alloys are further used for filaments for light bulbs. The iron and steel industries account for more than 75% of molybdenum consumption. China is the lead producer of molybdenum worldwide and accounts for 36% of global production.

What is at stake?
China's export restrictions on raw materials have a global impact and affect a significant share of EU trade, employment and production. They limit the availability of components for EU industry and increase the price.
The Chinese export restrictions offer a competitive advantage to Chinese industries that benefit from lower input prices. In some cases, a non-Chinese buyer has to buy its raw materials at a price that is more than twice that paid by a Chinese firm.
In some cases, the raw materials at stake can amount to a considerable share of the total production cost. Rare earths represent for example more than 50% of cost for wind turbine components and 50% to 60% for a LCD display. Therefore, the price difference can carry a decisive competitive disadvantage for components’ makers outside China.
For other final products, such as mobile phones, the impact on the price would be only several euros per item. However, even in such cases, there is most of the time no viable substitute for rare earths. Where there is a substitute, the final product needs to be redesigned and becomes more costly. For example, we do not currently have substitutes for rare earths' phosphorescent features for the whole range of colours. Limited access to those inputs would be a real threat to production of quality mobiles, tablets and PC screens outside China.
EU imports of Chinese raw materials involved in this WTO case are worth €460 million per year but their economic importance goes well beyond this figure. The EU imports only a relatively limited amount of rare earths directly from China. A significantly higher share of imports comes to Europe from other countries in a processed form.
For example, in 2012 total EU trade in hard drives, which contain rare-earths-based mini-magnets, was worth €7.5 billion. The value of EU trade in camera lenses, which contain rare earths and the surface of which must be polished using rare-earth-based polishing powders, amounted to €1 billion. 

How does this case relate to an earlier WTO ruling on China’s export restrictions? Was this case different?
In 2012, China already lost a first WTO case concerning its export quotas and duties imposed on other raw materials. The measures considered in the first dispute were very similar to those in today’s ruling. China claimed that the new case was different from the earlier one as the measures are now related to a comprehensive domestic resource conservation policy it put in place. But the WTO panel found that China cannot invoke its conservation policy to justify export restrictions if it only limits supply for foreign users and not for its domestic industry. 

Does this ruling prevent China from pursuing its environmental and conservation policies?
The panel’s ruling and the WTO rules in general do not prohibit regulating or limiting mining activities. They do not affect either a country’s right to pursue its resource conservation or environmental protection goals. As a WTO member, China should however refrain from discriminating against foreign users of resources. Contrary to these principles, China placed the main burden of its alleged conservation goals on foreign producers by restricting their access to crucial inputs, while ensuring sufficient supplies at lower prices to its domestic industry. The panel clearly concluded that the sovereign right over a country’s natural resources does not allow it to control international markets and the allocation of raw materials between foreign and domestic users. 

Has China implemented the first WTO ruling?
China implemented the first WTO ruling by lifting the export duties and quotas on the products at issue. It maintained, however, an export licence on products previously subject to an export quota. The removal of the export restrictions improved the level playing field on the raw material market. For instance, Chinese export prices of coke - an important input for the steel industry - significantly decreased from the level of $470 per ton to $300 per ton shortly after the removal of export duty. Chinese prices still remain high compared to other sources but the elimination of the export tax in China helped also lower export prices practiced by other countries.

Are there still any other export restrictions in China?
In its WTO Accession Protocol, China committed itself to refrain from imposing export duties except for 84 specific tariff lines. Today, it still applies export duties on 346 tariff lines, as well as export quota and licensing regimes on many products.

What does today’s ruling mean for export restrictions on raw materials not covered by this dispute?
The outcome of this case obliges China to bring its measures into compliance with the ruling. This only applies, however, to the raw materials considered in this case. Nonetheless, the EU hopes that China will revise its export restriction policy more broadly, in the light of the repeated conclusions of the WTO panels. 
[europa.eu]
26/3/14
--
-
Related:

Οι νεκροί Έλληνες στα μακεδονικά χώματα σάς κοιτούν με οργή

«Παριστάνετε τα "καλά παιδιά" ελπίζοντας στη στήριξη του διεθνή παράγοντα για να παραμείνετε στην εξουσία», ήταν η κατηγορία πο...