Case: Policy coherence in general

12-01-2011 European Parliament annoyed by delay in GSP reform

The Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is being discussed by the European Commission and the European Parliament, because the current scheme will end on 31st of December 2011. The Commission is preparing a new legislative proposal, however the policymaking process is expected to finish in the summer of 2012. In order to overcome this gap between the two agreements, the Commission proposed to extend the current GSP and GSP+ scheme.

GSP grants developing countries access to European markets with reduced tariffs. The GSP+ scheme is even more rewarding for developing countries, however to qualify the country must fulfil additional human rights and good governance requirements. These two systems are beneficial for developing countries. Yet the EU can decide to exclude certain products, limiting the beneficial effects of GSP and GSP+. Least developed countries can use another scheme, the so-called Everything But Arms (EBA), without any restrictions on tariff reductions, with the exception of weapons.

Both the Development Committee and the International Trade Committee in the Parliament agree that the GSP system needs to be reformed, and therefore they are disappointed with the current proposal of the Commission. Moreover, they feel like the Commission has forgotten that the treaty of Lisbon gave Parliament more rights in decision-making processes, like this one. While both Committees express their grievances about the political policymaking process, MEP Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL) on behalf of the International Trade Committee, mentioned in his report that poor countries which have managed to diversify their economies, are often excluded from the most beneficial schemes. Diversification is commonly seen as a necessary step for development in a country. MEP Eva Joly (Greens/EFA) added in her opinion on behalf of the Development Committee, that trade preferences could be a way to decrease aid dependency. Yet Eva Joly expressed the need for more intensive monitoring. Also information available from other European institutions or international organisations should be used while monitoring, especially in countries that have qualified for the GSP+.

Trade can generate development, however the GSP and GSP+ schemes have been criticised. It would only be beneficial to the EU in terms of gaining cheap raw materials. When developing countries start to move up the value-chain, their products are being denied preferential market access. However, through GSP and GSP+ the EU is giving developing countries benefits other trading partners do not receive. Fair Politics agrees with the MEPs Scholz and Joly that it is necessary to reform this system, yet the delay is not going to support developing countries in their struggle for the development and diversification of their economies. The current GSP and GSP+ proposals are therefore not coherent, and one can only hope that the Commission will soon present and implement reforms that would give development a fair chance.

For expressing their concerns about the GSP and GSP+ schemes, both MEP Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL) and MEP Eva Joly (Greens/EFA) are recognised as a Fair Politician. Scholz earns two points for his report, and Joly two as well for her opinion. These will be added in our monitoring system.  

Monitor fair: GUE/NGL(2), Greens/EFA(2)