reLAKSation
197.
Backing
down: In
a complete about turn, the European Commission’s Directorate of Trade have
announced that they will now remove all punitive anti-dumping duties and replace
them with a Minimum Import Price (MIP) of Euro 2.81/kg. Whilst this backdown may
have been unexpected to some, we at Callander McDowell, are not in the least bit
surprised. We believe that the Commission were forced to put some form of
compromise on the table or else risk being left with ‘egg all over their
face.’
EU
Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said in a press release that he was extremely
pleased that the Norwegian salmon industry and the European Commission have been
able to bring this dispute to an amicable solution. What Mr Mandelson’s
solution appears to ignore is the EUSPG. In a meeting with Fritz Harald Wenig of
DG Trade, Callander McDowell were clearly informed that any solution to the
dumping case would only happen with the full agreement of the EUSPG. This has
not happened. Angus Morgan told Seafoodintelligence.com that he is not aware of
any final agreement and that any proposal must be put to the member states.
Richie Flynn of the Irish Salmon Growers Association said that its more than a
bit premature to call it an agreement. He said that the Commisisoner can’t
just come out and say ‘Hey, we’ve reached an agreement’. Yet such comments
certainly give the impression that the EUSPG have been well and truly sidelined.
The only conclusion is that something has influenced a change in the
circumstances of this case and as a result, the Commission has sought a speedy
conclusion so that the matter can be drawn to a close as soon a possible.
Normally,
Callander McDowell uses reLAKSation to comment on the latest news. Our usual aim is to highlight issues and thus possible solutions in the
marketplace. However, we now need to break with this tradition and detail our involvement in
the latest developments of this dumping case.
DG Trade have read our reports from the outset and have regularly responded with comments. This has created an ongoing dialogue resulting in two invitations to discuss the issues in person at their Brussels offices. Despite this constant contact, the Commission have refused to accept Callander McDowell as an officially recognised ‘Interested Party’. We are therefore deemed unable to officially contribute to the discussions. It also means that we had been unable to access any of the supporting documentation such as the original EUSPG submission.
Whilst
the Commission have been actively clouding the underlying issues with their
suggestions that the safeguard/dumping cases could only be resolved with a
choice between dumping duties or a MIP, we, at Callander McDowell have always
believed that any solution must focus on the content of the original complaint
submission. These submissions were responsible for initiating the investigations
and therefore if the submission could be found to be invalid, then the
investigation and the findings would be too.
It
was a number of months before we were able to persuade the Commission, helped
by an appeal
to the Secretariat General, that their freedom of information legislation should
provide us with access to this documentation. Once we obtained the submission, it
didn’t take long to conclude that it was full of inaccuracies and misleading
statements rendering it invalid. DG Trade’s Complaints Department apparently
reject between 40-50% of all complaint submissions because the claims do not
stand up to scrutiny but despite the obvious errors, they allowed this case to
proceed. We believe that they were influenced by the previous safeguard
investigation and had already concluded that dumping had occurred. As a result,
it is possible that they did not examine the submission as thoroughly as they might.
One
example of their shortcomings can be seen in the written response from Peter
Mandelson to questions asked by Scottish MEP Struan Stevenson. According to Fish
Farming International, Mr Mandelson wrote that ‘co-operation by the Community
industry has been high with farmers representing 90% of Community production of
farmed salmon supporting the case.’ In their submission, the EUSPG state that
‘ The complainants represent about 30,000t or 90% of the production of the
Community industry.’ Clearly, this statement is from where Mr Mandelson
obtained his information. However, using available documentation, we at
Callander McDowell have identified a further 52 community farming companies
operating in the Community,
which the EUSPG seem to have excluded from their calculations and of which the Commission appear oblivious.
We, at Callander McDowell have documented this and other errors in a report, a copy of which was sent to DG Trade prior to the final date by which ‘Interested Parties’ could respond with their comments on the imposition of dumping duties.
Response to EUSPG complaint submission
Although
Callander McDowell have held a continuous dialogue with DG Trade, this ceased when
we submitted our report. We failed to even receive an
acknowledgement. Repeated failure to discuss our findings led us to send a copy
of our report to the Secretary General and whilst he is not empowered to act on
the information, it seems that Mr Mandelson has jumped at the first opportunity of
reaching an amicable solution. We can only conclude that DG Trade preferred to
keep our comments under wraps in the hope that the offer of a solution would
deflect attention away from any ensuing negative publicity that the case should
have never have even been allowed to proceed to investigation. We believe that
the Commission now realise this, which is why they have sought an immediate solution
without recourse to the EUSPG.
Yet
we, at Callander McDowell, do not believe that this solution is the right
solution for the salmon farming industry. The fact is that the whole dumping issue has
always been
overstated. The Norwegian industry have even reached this agreement without
admitting that dumping occurred. They are right to do this since we are convinced
that dumping did not occur. As we have stated on many previous occasions, the
EUSPG have resorted to dumping complaints because their vision for their salmon
is not reflected by what is happening in the marketplace. Rather than adapt
their vision to the market, they have tried to adapt the market to their vision.
This was never going to work.
The
international salmon industry now needs to put a complete stop to the
possibility of future dumping cases. By comparison, the Commission has indicated
that it wants to enter into another salmon agreement, but this will simply
prolong any continued market interference. The experience of the 1997 salmon
agreement shows that a similar arrangement would be a total waste of time.
Instead, the Norwegian salmon industry should follow the advice of the
Commission’s Secretariat General who suggests that the case should be legally
challenged in court. The EUSPG’s submission provides more than enough
ammunition to shoot all future salmon dumping cases into kingdom-come.