Control Panel
Home EPPA EU Newsletter - September
EURO NEWS UPDATE NO.40
ENVIRONMENTALLY & FINANCIALLY COST-EFFECTIVE TRANSPORT
As everyone knows (but seldom considers at an early stage), a sound logistics strategy should be at the heart of any inter-Europe or international promotion campaign. The most innovative campaign and the most superb promotional products will fail to deliver brand recognition or increased market share, IF that campaign is not supported by a realistic, cost-effective and well-timed logistics plan.
Well, now add to this list of components for a logistics strategy ‘eco-friendly and carbon efficient’ because, according to Margot Parker, Head of European Communications and Legislation for EPPA, “Transport is in the eco-spotlight as far as the EU is concerned, with radical and far reaching legislation planned to cut carbon emissions from the transport sector.”
This is not scare mongering – this is a timely warning that EPPA members need to consider
the ecological as well as the financial cost of freight, and efficiencies on both can be achieved if you follow the advice of Tom Doll, Director of EPPA member and logistics experts, Pace Europe. He advises the following:
Forward planning – formulate a clear strategy for importing, handling, fulfilment and distribution to meet the needs of your clients at an early stage in campaign planning. Freight and handling costs are often overlooked and not accounted for until the final stages of a promotion, these costs can seriously cut into your bottom line profitability. Efficiencies are more easily achieved with pre-booked shipments and rather than last minute consignments.
Keep it simple – consolidate merchandise in one central location for mainland European distribution. This will reduce the number of points of contact and therefore the risk of errors throughout the process. Consolidation in one central location will help to reduce freight and handling costs, avoid double handling and the related costs and cut down on time. Outer packaging (another item high on the EU agenda) may also be reduced in line with reduced handling.
Keep up to date with regulations – New EU regulations concerning drivers hours (effective from 11th April 07) reduce the previous 74-hour driving week to no more than 48 hours per week on average over a four-month period and make provision for longer rest periods. Compliance with these new rules has to be taken into consideration when working to clients’ timetables and deadlines. EPPA gives members regular updates on legislation impacting on the promotions industry and by leveraging this knowledge you can increase client confidence as well as efficiency.
Pace Network (of which Pace Europe is a division) has 10 years experience in international logistics. The group is well established in the promotions sector (among others) and is official freight handler for the industry’s largest UK exhibition, The Promotional Marketing Exhibition, as well as serving many well known names in the sector. With modern office and warehouse accommodation strategically place in southern Holland, close to the boarders of Germany and Belgium, Pace Europe is ideally situated to warehouse, handle, fulfil and distribute promotional merchandise throughout Europe, cost and eco-effectively.
To assist EPPA members to fully appreciate the advantages of streamlined logistics, Pace Europe will offer them FREE storage of up to 10 pallets at their warehouse in Susteren, Holland, when part of a promotional campaign fulfilled by Pace. (This offer available up to the end of 2007.)
Pace will also offer a free one-to-one consultancy service to EPPA members to demonstrate how Pace Europe’s ‘Tailor Made Comprehensive Logistics’ strategy can have a positive impact on their transport and logistics strategy.
Call Tom Doll + 31 (0) 46 449 51 51
EU cuts red tape at record speed: Small businesses save time and money
Public limited liability companies will no longer have to order costly expert reports in cases of mergers and divisions, unless there is a demand for such reports among shareholders. After a three months fast track procedure, the European Parliament yesterday accepted a Commission proposal for removing unnecessary burdens on small businesses. The proposal is one of a package of ten “fast track actions” presented by the Commission only a few months ago to cut red tape and now awaits agreement by the Member States. This package contains the first examples of pure reduction proposals, for instance when it comes to information obligations, to be agreed in a fast and efficient procedure by the legislators.
Newer Telecoms Call For Tighter EU Regulation Of National Mkts
The European Union must develop tighter regulations over national telecommunications markets to help ensure competition, a group of chief executives of newer, non-incumbent European telecom firms told the European Commission this week.
The CEOs complain that the use of lawsuits and fines to enforce Brussels' antitrust rules for telecom markets is ineffective and needs to be replaced with a faster, stronger regulatory framework.
"The current situation of 'competition by litigation' needs to be changed," said Fastweb's Chief Executive Officer Stefano Parisi to E.U. Antitrust Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
The call to Brussels for tighter regulation comes as the commission prepares its proposed overhaul of the European Union's telecom rules, due in October this year. The proposal is expected to call for either a transfer of some powers to the commission from national regulators or for the creation of a single Brussels-based watchdog to oversee national regulators.
The proposal will also call for empowering national regulators to order the "functional separation" of telecom operators - to force them to split their operations into two wholly-owned subsidiaries, one unit to run and invest in the national telecoms infrastructure and the second to offer customer services for that network in competition with other companies. The measure would help prevent national champions from discriminating against newer players trying to use their infrastructure to enter the market, the commission said.
The 27 national telecom regulators, known together as the ERG, would welcome the commission's proposal to allow "national regulators to mandate functional separation of companies having significant market power where such a remedy is justifiable and proportionate," according to ERG Chair Roberto Viola, also the Secretary General of Italian regulator Agcom.
"The ERG's views on functional separation will be conveyed to the European Commission in the framework our excellent cooperation, so that they can be considered in the forthcoming proposed legislation," Viola added.
While newer telecom players say functional separation will help to ensure that large incumbent operators don't abuse their dominance, they warn that the measure may take years to enforce and that a faster crack-down is needed.
EU to strengthen co-ordinated actions against digital piracy putting in front dialogue with the industry
AEPOC, the European Association for the Protection of Encrypted Works and Services, welcomes the European Commission’s Communication “Towards a general policy on the fight against cyber crime”, as agreed during the recent AEPOC Board of Directors and Ordinary General Assembly meeting, held on June 28 in Lisbon: The initiative - aimed at improving coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities and private sector operators - shall be complemented by other actions taken at national, European and international level to fight cyber crime such as hacking and piracy of digital systems.
Vice-President Franco Frattini, EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security, pointed to the need for a strong dialogue with the industry in order to make this policy effective. Besides the overall positive development of the Internet and digital information systems - giving rise to new rapid flows of information, products and services across the internal and external borders of the EU - the European Commission acknowledges the obvious difficulties of legislation and law enforcement to keep pace with the ever evolving forms and techniques of digital piracy and cyber crime in general.
AEPOC doubts effectiveness of proposed IPR Directive
At the same time, AEPOC underlines its strong concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed Directive for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While AEPOC values the overall aim, the current proposal implies an adverse idea of legal piracy: The text expressively admits piracy committed by private users for non-profit purposes without any risk of sanction while a commercial activity shall be subject to severe consequences. AEPOC recommends to refine the definition of “commercial activity” to a more realistic view. As “private piracy“ may also reach important scale with relevant monetary savings realized, AEPOC proposes to foresee substantial legal consequences for obvious “heavy users” and more symbolic but real penalties for acts of individual cases of piracy, probably comparable to parking fines or similar more regulatory offences.
Davide Rossi, Secretary General AEPOC, commented: “In the ten years existence of our Association we have learned that co-operation is an effective tool to fight digital piracy. The collaborative work among our members is one good example of industry co-operation. Also, as to joint efforts with law enforcement entities, AEPOC members have successfully provided training sessions to EU Customs to learn practically about forms of pirated products. We therefore judge the EU initiative against cyber crime as a step into the right direction, possibly leading to considerable results by putting together the existing strengths of all stakeholders.“
AEPOC President Jean Grenier added: “AEPOC is highly interested to see this EU Communication become a tangible reality. AEPOC believes in co-operative approaches between authorities and the industry - and will certainly support any actions helping to develop a more coherent framework against piracy - and this on a cross-border level, including outside EU issues. As this initiative is mainly based on EU and international coordination, thus aiming to optimise existing legislative means - it should go hand-in-hand with sufficiently dissuasive laws in general. In the field of digital piracy, and more precisely regarding the Proposal of an IPR Directive, AEPOC sees the firm need for a stronger protection of copyright. We believe in the Commission’s fair balance to create a satisfactory solution also for the community of rights holders and creative artists.”
As regards next steps of the IPR Directive development, the Commission will prepare a revised proposal for the Council of the European Union to be transmitted to the European Parliament for a second reading - this is not expected before Winter 2007. While AEPOC will continue its dialogue with different EU bodies and delegates, the Association welcomes EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen’s position, having expressed concerns with the Parliament’s proposed definition of “commercial scale”, anticipating an opposing opinion within the Commission to this amendment as proposed by the Parliament.
New law in Portugal: Anti-Piracy update
Manuel Rosa da Silva, Vice President of TV Cabo, hosting company of the AEPOC meeting in Lisbon, gave a comprehensive update on the market situation in Portugal and the company’s strong policy in the fight against digital piracy. TV Cabo, the country’s market leading pay-TV operator, now benefits from a new law - the Decree-Law 176/2007 of May 2007 - facilitating legal actions against audiovisual piracy.
This act foresees strong penalties for basically any contact to piracy equipment or illegal access to a pay-TV signal: Including private users, the use or possession of illicit apparatuses or unauthorised access is prohibited specifically by this new law.
While it is TV Cabo’s - and AEPOC’s - main goal to prevent illegal behaviour in the first place - no matter, if piracy is committed on a ‘private use’ or commercial basis - the company’s “Security and Fraud Combat Department” works closely with the Portuguese Judiciary Police as well as other national bodies, conducting successful anti-piracy investigations. In parallel, TV Cabo is investing in its advanced digital network technologies: currently, around 800.000 pay-TV smart cards are being swapped as an overall measure to prevent piracy.
Votes of AEPOC’s Ordinary General Assembly
During the Ordinary General Assembly session, AEPOC President Jean Grenier and Secretary General Davide Rossi have been confirmed in their positions for the next three years. Christine Maury-Panis, Viaccess - France Telecom, and Michael Barley, BSkyB, have been appointed AEPOC Vice Presidents. Marta Neves, TV Cabo Portugal, and Andreas Rudloff, Premiere, have been appointed members of the Board of Directors. Accordingly the new composition of the AEPOC Board of Directors is as follows: Mr. Jean Grenier, President AEPOC; Mr. Michael Barley (BSkyB), Vice President AEPOC; Mrs. Christine Maury-Panis (Viaccess - France Telecom), Vice President AEPOC; Mr. Davide Rossi, Secretary General AEPOC; Mr. Andrew Curle (Irdeto); Mr. Anthony Dixon (Pace); Mrs. Pascaline Gineste (Canal+); Mrs. Marine Jan (Nagravision); Mr. Chris Le Maitre (NDS); Mrs. Marta Neves (TV Cabo); Mr. Andreas Rudloff (Premiere); Mr. Luca Sanfilippo (Sky Italia); Mr. Didier Zwierski (Philips).
AEPOC (www.aepoc.org) is the "Association Européenne pour la Protection des ?uvres et Services Cryptés" or the "European Association for the Protection of Encrypted Works and Services". AEPOC started its activities in 1995. Its current membership consists of 34 leading digital television and telecommunication companies including TV channels, conditional access providers, providers of transmission infrastructures and manufacturers of related hardware. AEPOC's goal is to eliminate the pirating of encrypted works and services and to encourage the development of the appropriate legal, operational and technological frameworks to increase the security and safeguarding of conditional access systems for Pay-TV, TV-based and IP services.
Vice-President Franco Frattini, EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security, pointed to the need for a strong dialogue with the industry in order to make this policy effective. Besides the overall positive development of the Internet and digital information systems - giving rise to new rapid flows of information, products and services across the internal and external borders of the EU - the European Commission acknowledges the obvious difficulties of legislation and law enforcement to keep pace with the ever evolving forms and techniques of digital piracy and cyber crime in general.
AEPOC doubts effectiveness of proposed IPR Directive
At the same time, AEPOC underlines its strong concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed Directive for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While AEPOC values the overall aim, the current proposal implies an adverse idea of legal piracy: The text expressively admits piracy committed by private users for non-profit purposes without any risk of sanction while a commercial activity shall be subject to severe consequences. AEPOC recommends to refine the definition of “commercial activity” to a more realistic view. As “private piracy“ may also reach important scale with relevant monetary savings realized, AEPOC proposes to foresee substantial legal consequences for obvious “heavy users” and more symbolic but real penalties for acts of individual cases of piracy, probably comparable to parking fines or similar more regulatory offences.
Davide Rossi, Secretary General AEPOC, commented: “In the ten years existence of our Association we have learned that co-operation is an effective tool to fight digital piracy. The collaborative work among our members is one good example of industry co-operation. Also, as to joint efforts with law enforcement entities, AEPOC members have successfully provided training sessions to EU Customs to learn practically about forms of pirated products. We therefore judge the EU initiative against cyber crime as a step into the right direction, possibly leading to considerable results by putting together the existing strengths of all stakeholders.“
AEPOC President Jean Grenier added: “AEPOC is highly interested to see this EU Communication become a tangible reality. AEPOC believes in co-operative approaches between authorities and the industry - and will certainly support any actions helping to develop a more coherent framework against piracy - and this on a cross-border level, including outside EU issues. As this initiative is mainly based on EU and international coordination, thus aiming to optimise existing legislative means - it should go hand-in-hand with sufficiently dissuasive laws in general. In the field of digital piracy, and more precisely regarding the Proposal of an IPR Directive, AEPOC sees the firm need for a stronger protection of copyright. We believe in the Commission’s fair balance to create a satisfactory solution also for the community of rights holders and creative artists.”
As regards next steps of the IPR Directive development, the Commission will prepare a revised proposal for the Council of the European Union to be transmitted to the European Parliament for a second reading - this is not expected before Winter 2007. While AEPOC will continue its dialogue with different EU bodies and delegates, the Association welcomes EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen’s position, having expressed concerns with the Parliament’s proposed definition of “commercial scale”, anticipating an opposing opinion within the Commission to this amendment as proposed by the Parliament.
New law in Portugal: Anti-Piracy update
Manuel Rosa da Silva, Vice President of TV Cabo, hosting company of the AEPOC meeting in Lisbon, gave a comprehensive update on the market situation in Portugal and the company’s strong policy in the fight against digital piracy. TV Cabo, the country’s market leading pay-TV operator, now benefits from a new law - the Decree-Law 176/2007 of May 2007 - facilitating legal actions against audiovisual piracy.
This act foresees strong penalties for basically any contact to piracy equipment or illegal access to a pay-TV signal: Including private users, the use or possession of illicit apparatuses or unauthorised access is prohibited specifically by this new law.
While it is TV Cabo’s - and AEPOC’s - main goal to prevent illegal behaviour in the first place - no matter, if piracy is committed on a ‘private use’ or commercial basis - the company’s “Security and Fraud Combat Department” works closely with the Portuguese Judiciary Police as well as other national bodies, conducting successful anti-piracy investigations. In parallel, TV Cabo is investing in its advanced digital network technologies: currently, around 800.000 pay-TV smart cards are being swapped as an overall measure to prevent piracy.
Votes of AEPOC’s Ordinary General Assembly
During the Ordinary General Assembly session, AEPOC President Jean Grenier and Secretary General Davide Rossi have been confirmed in their positions for the next three years. Christine Maury-Panis, Viaccess - France Telecom, and Michael Barley, BSkyB, have been appointed AEPOC Vice Presidents. Marta Neves, TV Cabo Portugal, and Andreas Rudloff, Premiere, have been appointed members of the Board of Directors. Accordingly the new composition of the AEPOC Board of Directors is as follows: Mr. Jean Grenier, President AEPOC; Mr. Michael Barley (BSkyB), Vice President AEPOC; Mrs. Christine Maury-Panis (Viaccess - France Telecom), Vice President AEPOC; Mr. Davide Rossi, Secretary General AEPOC; Mr. Andrew Curle (Irdeto); Mr. Anthony Dixon (Pace); Mrs. Pascaline Gineste (Canal+); Mrs. Marine Jan (Nagravision); Mr. Chris Le Maitre (NDS); Mrs. Marta Neves (TV Cabo); Mr. Andreas Rudloff (Premiere); Mr. Luca Sanfilippo (Sky Italia); Mr. Didier Zwierski (Philips).
AEPOC (www.aepoc.org) is the "Association Européenne pour la Protection des ?uvres et Services Cryptés" or the "European Association for the Protection of Encrypted Works and Services". AEPOC started its activities in 1995. Its current membership consists of 34 leading digital television and telecommunication companies including TV channels, conditional access providers, providers of transmission infrastructures and manufacturers of related hardware. AEPOC's goal is to eliminate the pirating of encrypted works and services and to encourage the development of the appropriate legal, operational and technological frameworks to increase the security and safeguarding of conditional access systems for Pay-TV, TV-based and IP services.
Parliament committees support strict CO2 targets
Including air conditioning in vehicle testing, low vehicle CO2 emission limits, and strict deadlines are favoured by different committees of the European Parliament. Their proposals will help to promote innovation in the car industry.
Several committees in the European Parliament are currently discussing an EU Strategy to reduce CO2 vehicle emissions. Meeting on 17 July, the Industry committee backed the introduction of CO2 emission limits of 120 g/km. While not specifying by which date this target should be achieved, the committee members rejected a further delay until 2015, as requested by the car industry. On the contrary, they emphasized that the proposed target of 120 g/km was already adopted ten years ago to be achieved by 2005, latest 2010. Hence the committee calls for ambitious emission targets below 100 g/km for the post-2012 period.
The opinion, drafted by German Green Rebecca Harms, also urged the European Commission to assess total greenhouse gas emissions from cars, including those attributable to air conditioning systems. This would require new test cycles better reflecting real driving conditions.
The industry committee's proposals are in line with the opinion from the internal market committee stating that the 120 g/km target should be met "within five years" of the proposed legislation coming into effect.
The industry committee's proposals are in line with the opinion from the internal market committee stating that the 120 g/km target should be met "within five years" of the proposed legislation coming into effect.
The committees' opinions
More specifically, the industry committee calls for:
More specifically, the industry committee calls for:
- An 80-100 g/km target for the medium term
- Tax incentives for buyers of low-emissive cars
- An assessment of the total car emissions, including air conditioning
- The development of new test cycles
The internal market committee proposes:
- Compulsory labeling of efficiency categories, using simple letter or colour codes
- Consumer information to indicate vehicle tax (if based on CO2 emissions)
Next steps
More Parliament committees, including the Economy and the Transport committees, are expected to comment on the proposal by the European Commission to cut CO2 emissions down to 120 g/km by 2012. On 4 July, the Environment Committee discussed a draft report by the Liberal Chris Davies to limit CO2 emissions to 120 g/km by 2015. The full Parliament plenary vote is expected for October, before the Commission issues draft legislation by end-2007 or early-2008.
More Parliament committees, including the Economy and the Transport committees, are expected to comment on the proposal by the European Commission to cut CO2 emissions down to 120 g/km by 2012. On 4 July, the Environment Committee discussed a draft report by the Liberal Chris Davies to limit CO2 emissions to 120 g/km by 2015. The full Parliament plenary vote is expected for October, before the Commission issues draft legislation by end-2007 or early-2008.
EU: China 'must deliver' on safety
China has not honoured commitments to provide information on action it has taken against makers of products recalled in Europe, the EU says.
Beijing committed to giving detailed quarterly reports in January 2006, but has only delivered two, the EU's consumer commissioner told a news conference in Beijing.
|
|
|
"The first report was very poor," Meglena Kuneva said. "The second was better but still not sufficient. That's why I am here."
Kuneva's comments come amid global concerns over the safety of Chinese goods.
|
|
|
Exports ranging from toothpaste to seafood to toy trains have been recalled or banned in various countries after being found to be below standard or contain dangerous chemicals.
Kuneva, who met Li Changjiang, the head of the China's product safety watchdog on Monday, said they agreed that Beijing would submit a report on prevention and follow-up actions by October.
That report would come ahead of a scheduled November meeting between the Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, and Jose Manuel Barosso, the president of the European Commission.
"China is in a position really to prove how serious it is about investigating more thoroughly the problems we identify," she said.
'No double standard'
Kuneva defended EU bans on Chinese imports deemed dangerous or unsafe, saying they were dealt with in the same way as unsafe products from any other country.
"There is no double standard," she said.
In 2006, the EU identified 924 products - from unsafe lighters to wobbly baby strollers to short-circuiting kettles - as too dangerous to be sold in its 27 member nations, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
China was the country of origin in almost half of the cases; more than a quarter of all goods the EU imports are from China.
Chinese authorities have promised stricter surveillance and severe punishment for violators, trying to reassure trade partners and regain consumer confidence.
On Tuesday, the state-run Beijing Evening News said officials were promising Beijing food producers and sellers lighter punishments if they voluntarily recalled food they knew to be harmful.
"If they recall their tainted food, their punishment will be lighter or they will not be punished at all," the newspaper said.
If illegal ingredients or additives are found in 65 types of food commonly consumed, including rice and flour, manufacturers can be fined up to $13,000 and have their production certification revoked, the report said.
EU Emissions Trading Scheme
Since 2005, some 12,000 large industrial plants in the EU are able to buy and sell permits to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The so-called Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) enables companies exceeding individual CO2 emissions targets to buy allowances from 'greener' ones and help reach the EU targets under the Kyoto Protocol. But overallocations of pollution credits by several member states is forcing carbon prices down and risk undermining the scheme's credibility.
Germany considers opening up to job seekers from new Europe
Germany is set to consider relaxing or dropping labour barriers against job seekers from the new EU member states due to a rising number of vacancies impossible to fill by domestic workers.
Angela Merkel's cabinet will debate the issue in late August, but Gerd Andres from the labour ministry admitted, "If we continue to suffer from a labour shortage in Germany, we could consider lifting the limits on eastern European labour before 2009," according to the daily Hanoversche Allgemeine Zeitung.
Government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm suggested that the grand coalition of Christian democrats CDU/CSU and social democrats SPD has not yet reached a common position on the matter.
But employers' groups praised the plan to consider a change of the strategy, with Achim Derecks of the German chamber of commerce commenting it was a "good sign" that it was no longer a taboo to consider removing the restrictions before 2009, reports AFP.
Germany and Austria have been the most reluctant of the "old" EU member states to open their labour markets to citizens from eight post-communist countries which joined the bloc in 2004 as well as to Romania and Bulgaria which entered this year.
After taking up the possibility last year to extend their temporary restrictions for another three years, both Berlin and Vienna suggested it was likely they would use the maximum allowed period to keep the barriers - up till 2011.
However, the EU's biggest economy is currently facing a boom accompanied by record unemployment rates - the June statistics showed it was 8.8 percent, the lowest for 14 years.
At the same time, there are almost a million vacancies available in the country's labour market that employers strive to fill due to great shortages of German qualified job seekers.
With a low birth rate and proceeding trends of aging population, experts suggest the country's economic growth could in the long run suffer as a result of such loopholes in the labour force.
Just the opposite in the UK
Free movement of workers - one of the fundamental principles of the union - was originally applied by the UK, Ireland and Sweden only with respect to the 2004 new members states, even though Finland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece later joined in.
Both the UK and Ireland opted to temporarily close the door to Bulgarians and Romanians as a result of the unexpected surge of migrants.
Before 2004 enlargement, British officials had expected about 15,000 migrant workers a year to arrive in the country, but over 600,000 have taken the plunge in just two years.
The most recent statistics from the UK's Department for Work and Pensions have shown that the country continues attracting the newcomers, with over 320,000 people from central and eastern Europe reported to have come last year.
The figure is higher by 16 percent compared to 2005. On top of that, around 8,000 Romanians and Bulgarians arrived in the UK in a bid to find work, as well as 2,400 seasonal agricultural workers, according to the official report.
Angela Merkel's cabinet will debate the issue in late August, but Gerd Andres from the labour ministry admitted, "If we continue to suffer from a labour shortage in Germany, we could consider lifting the limits on eastern European labour before 2009," according to the daily Hanoversche Allgemeine Zeitung.
Government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm suggested that the grand coalition of Christian democrats CDU/CSU and social democrats SPD has not yet reached a common position on the matter.
But employers' groups praised the plan to consider a change of the strategy, with Achim Derecks of the German chamber of commerce commenting it was a "good sign" that it was no longer a taboo to consider removing the restrictions before 2009, reports AFP.
Germany and Austria have been the most reluctant of the "old" EU member states to open their labour markets to citizens from eight post-communist countries which joined the bloc in 2004 as well as to Romania and Bulgaria which entered this year.
After taking up the possibility last year to extend their temporary restrictions for another three years, both Berlin and Vienna suggested it was likely they would use the maximum allowed period to keep the barriers - up till 2011.
However, the EU's biggest economy is currently facing a boom accompanied by record unemployment rates - the June statistics showed it was 8.8 percent, the lowest for 14 years.
At the same time, there are almost a million vacancies available in the country's labour market that employers strive to fill due to great shortages of German qualified job seekers.
With a low birth rate and proceeding trends of aging population, experts suggest the country's economic growth could in the long run suffer as a result of such loopholes in the labour force.
Just the opposite in the UK
Free movement of workers - one of the fundamental principles of the union - was originally applied by the UK, Ireland and Sweden only with respect to the 2004 new members states, even though Finland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece later joined in.
Both the UK and Ireland opted to temporarily close the door to Bulgarians and Romanians as a result of the unexpected surge of migrants.
Before 2004 enlargement, British officials had expected about 15,000 migrant workers a year to arrive in the country, but over 600,000 have taken the plunge in just two years.
The most recent statistics from the UK's Department for Work and Pensions have shown that the country continues attracting the newcomers, with over 320,000 people from central and eastern Europe reported to have come last year.
The figure is higher by 16 percent compared to 2005. On top of that, around 8,000 Romanians and Bulgarians arrived in the UK in a bid to find work, as well as 2,400 seasonal agricultural workers, according to the official report.
Questions And Answers On Health And Nutrition Claims
Nutrition Claims
Nutrition
Examples include "high in vitamin C", "low fat
What is the aim of the new EU legislation on health and nutrition claims on food?
The Regulation on Health and Nutrition Claims aims to ensure that consumers are not misled by unsubstantiated, exaggerated or untruthful claims about foodstuffs. With the new legislation, consumers will be able to rely on clearer and more accurate information on food labels, enabling them to be properly informed on the food they choose. This ties in with the EU campaign for healthier lifestyle choices, as well as the Commission’s consumer protection objectives. The Regulation also aims to provide food producers and manufacturers with clear, harmonised rules that would ensure fair competition and help protect innovation in the food industry, by ensuring that manufacturers making genuine health and nutrition claims are not competing with false or inaccurate claims.
What products will be covered by the Health and Nutrition Claims legislation?
The Regulation will apply to any food or drink product produced for human consumption to be sold on the EU/ ", "no added sugar"and "high fibre". Health claims maintain that there is a relationship between a specific food and improved health, or that a food can reduce the risk of a particular disease. Examples include "calcium is good for your bones". claims are those used on labels or in advertising/marketing campaigns, which make an assertion about a particular nutritional property of a food. MemberStates’ market. The new rules do not cover cosmetics, medicine or pet food products.
How will it be decided which health claims can or cannot be used?
For many well-established ‘function’ health claims (such as "calcium may be good for your bones"), an EU positive list will be drawn up by the Commission, on the basis of claims submitted by Member States. These health claims will then be allowed to be carried on any label so long as the producer can verify the link between the claim and the product, and the food complies with the nutrient profiles.
For certain other health claims – disease risk reduction claims and claims referring to the health of children – authorisation will be required on a case-by-case basis, following the submission of a scientific dossier to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for assessment. Likewise, health claims based on new scientific data will have to be submitted to EFSA for evaluation before they can be authorised for use. It was agreed during negotiations between the European Parliament and Council that a simplified procedure should be set up for the authorisation of these health claims, in order to encourage innovation in the food industry.
Under this simplified procedure, if the EFSA Opinion on the claim is positive, the Commission will take a decision on whether or not to authorise it after simple consultation of Members States. However, if EFSA gives a negative Opinion, the standard Comitology procedure will be used to decide whether or not to authorise the claim i.e. MemberState experts will vote on a Commission proposal in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
What does the Regulation set out in terms of nutrient profiles of foodstuffs and the claims they can carry?
Under the Health and Nutrition Claims Regulation, food that does not fit a set nutrient profile (i.e. which is too high in salt, sugar and/or fat) will not be allowed to carry any health or nutrition claims. This is because claims are used to present products as having an additional health or nutritional benefit. In most cases, consumers perceive products carrying certain claims to be better for their health and wellbeing. However, at the moment, a food which is high in fat, salt and/or sugar, can still use claims such as "rich in vitamin C" or "high in fibre" to attract consumers, even if the overall health and nutritional benefits of the product are low. The Health and Nutrition Claims Regulation aims to prevent consumers from being misled in this way, by tying the use of health or nutrition claims to certain conditions related to the nutrient profiles (i.e. level of fat, sugar, salt etc) of foods. These nutrient profiles will be based on the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
What is the procedure for establishing these nutrient profiles?
The nutrient profiles will be based on the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Commission will consult the relevant stakeholders, and present proposals for nutrient profiles to MemberState experts in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. If the Standing Committee backs these proposed nutrient profiles, they will be adopted by the Commission (Comitology procedure) and will enter into force following publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
What rules are set out for trademarks and brand names?
The Regulation will apply to any trademark that can be construed as a health or nutrition claim. Within 15 years, existing brand names suggesting health benefits (such as promises of weight loss
What does the Regulation provide for alcoholic products?
Food and beverages containing more than 1,2 % alcohol will not be allowed to make health or nutrition claims under the proposed legislation, unless the claim refers to a reduction in alcohol or energy content (calories). This is because the over consumption of alcohol is associated with health problems that the EU and Member State authorities are working to reduce or eliminate, and therefore alcohol should not be promoted on the basis of its nutritional properties.
Will any health and nutrition claims be completely banned?
Yes. Information in labelling, marketing or advertising about the nutritional or health benefits of foods which is not clear, accurate or substantiated will not be permitted. In addition, claims referring to rates or amounts of weight loss, as well as claims referring to recommendations of individual doctors will be banned. Health claims on alcoholic beverages above 1.2 % will also not be allowed, except those referring to a reduction in alcohol or energy content, due to the link between alcohol and other health and social problems.
Are there any benefits for the food industry in the new rules?
The Regulation has many benefits to offer the food industry. Firstly, it recognises the importance of a clear regulatory environment for the food industry, which will allow greater legal security and a more predictable environment for food operators. The new rules will also serve to support innovation, as manufacturers will be encouraged to develop food and drink products for which health and nutrition claims can genuinely be made. It is also a way of preventing unfair competition from unscrupulous manufacturers using false or misleading claims. It should be noted that health and nutrition claims are voluntarily put on products by producers as a marketing tool. If positive claims cannot be established, the Regulation does not oblige anyone to make negative claims about the product.
What measures will start to apply immediately from July 1st, and what provisions are subject to a transitional period?
From ) and which do not meet the requirements of the Regulation must be phased out and removed from the market. No new trademarks or brand names which imply health or nutritional benefits will be allowed to be put on the EU market unless the claims implied can be substantiated, in line with the provisions of the Regulation. However, certain generic descriptors (e.g. Digestives, aperitifs) may apply for derogation from this rule.July 1 2007, certain measures are immediately effective e.g. the ban on alcoholic beverages carrying claims, except those referring to a reduction in energy or alcohol content.
Also, new products put on the market must respect the conditions for nutritional claims which are set out in detail in the Annex of the Regulation e.g. the can only be labelled low fat if the product contains less than 3g of fat per 100g or 1.5g of fat per 100ml. Products already labelled or on the market before January 2007 may remain on the market with the old labels until January 2010. During this time, Member States can submit new claims that they want added to the Annex. From 2010, only nutritional claims included in the EU Annex will be allowed to be used.
Nutritional profiles will take 2 years to set – one year for an EFSA evaluation and one year for agreement with Member States through Comitology. Once they have been set, there will be another 2 year period before they begin to apply, to allow operators time to adjust.
For health function claims, Member States have one year to submit health claims they would like included in the EU positive list. It will take another 2 years after that for EFSA to evaluate these claims, and for a Comitology decision to be taken on a final list that can be used. This 3 year period will allow operators sufficient time to adapt to the new EU requirements.
The Commission will propose the same transitional period for the use of claims referring specifically to children's development and health. This proposal will be sent to the European Parliament and Council for adoption.
With regard to trade marks, existing brand names which suggest health benefits but do not meet the requirements of the Regulation must be entirely removed from the market within 15 years. This timeframe was considered to be a reasonable period for companies to make the necessary adjustments and changes to their branding.
Nutrition
Examples include "high in vitamin C", "low fat
What is the aim of the new EU legislation on health and nutrition claims on food?
The Regulation on Health and Nutrition Claims aims to ensure that consumers are not misled by unsubstantiated, exaggerated or untruthful claims about foodstuffs. With the new legislation, consumers will be able to rely on clearer and more accurate information on food labels, enabling them to be properly informed on the food they choose. This ties in with the EU campaign for healthier lifestyle choices, as well as the Commission’s consumer protection objectives. The Regulation also aims to provide food producers and manufacturers with clear, harmonised rules that would ensure fair competition and help protect innovation in the food industry, by ensuring that manufacturers making genuine health and nutrition claims are not competing with false or inaccurate claims.
What products will be covered by the Health and Nutrition Claims legislation?
The Regulation will apply to any food or drink product produced for human consumption to be sold on the EU/ ", "no added sugar"and "high fibre". Health claims maintain that there is a relationship between a specific food and improved health, or that a food can reduce the risk of a particular disease. Examples include "calcium is good for your bones". claims are those used on labels or in advertising/marketing campaigns, which make an assertion about a particular nutritional property of a food. MemberStates’ market. The new rules do not cover cosmetics, medicine or pet food products.
How will it be decided which health claims can or cannot be used?
For many well-established ‘function’ health claims (such as "calcium may be good for your bones"), an EU positive list will be drawn up by the Commission, on the basis of claims submitted by Member States. These health claims will then be allowed to be carried on any label so long as the producer can verify the link between the claim and the product, and the food complies with the nutrient profiles.
For certain other health claims – disease risk reduction claims and claims referring to the health of children – authorisation will be required on a case-by-case basis, following the submission of a scientific dossier to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for assessment. Likewise, health claims based on new scientific data will have to be submitted to EFSA for evaluation before they can be authorised for use. It was agreed during negotiations between the European Parliament and Council that a simplified procedure should be set up for the authorisation of these health claims, in order to encourage innovation in the food industry.
Under this simplified procedure, if the EFSA Opinion on the claim is positive, the Commission will take a decision on whether or not to authorise it after simple consultation of Members States. However, if EFSA gives a negative Opinion, the standard Comitology procedure will be used to decide whether or not to authorise the claim i.e. MemberState experts will vote on a Commission proposal in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
What does the Regulation set out in terms of nutrient profiles of foodstuffs and the claims they can carry?
Under the Health and Nutrition Claims Regulation, food that does not fit a set nutrient profile (i.e. which is too high in salt, sugar and/or fat) will not be allowed to carry any health or nutrition claims. This is because claims are used to present products as having an additional health or nutritional benefit. In most cases, consumers perceive products carrying certain claims to be better for their health and wellbeing. However, at the moment, a food which is high in fat, salt and/or sugar, can still use claims such as "rich in vitamin C" or "high in fibre" to attract consumers, even if the overall health and nutritional benefits of the product are low. The Health and Nutrition Claims Regulation aims to prevent consumers from being misled in this way, by tying the use of health or nutrition claims to certain conditions related to the nutrient profiles (i.e. level of fat, sugar, salt etc) of foods. These nutrient profiles will be based on the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
What is the procedure for establishing these nutrient profiles?
The nutrient profiles will be based on the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Commission will consult the relevant stakeholders, and present proposals for nutrient profiles to MemberState experts in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. If the Standing Committee backs these proposed nutrient profiles, they will be adopted by the Commission (Comitology procedure) and will enter into force following publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
What rules are set out for trademarks and brand names?
The Regulation will apply to any trademark that can be construed as a health or nutrition claim. Within 15 years, existing brand names suggesting health benefits (such as promises of weight loss
What does the Regulation provide for alcoholic products?
Food and beverages containing more than 1,2 % alcohol will not be allowed to make health or nutrition claims under the proposed legislation, unless the claim refers to a reduction in alcohol or energy content (calories). This is because the over consumption of alcohol is associated with health problems that the EU and Member State authorities are working to reduce or eliminate, and therefore alcohol should not be promoted on the basis of its nutritional properties.
Will any health and nutrition claims be completely banned?
Yes. Information in labelling, marketing or advertising about the nutritional or health benefits of foods which is not clear, accurate or substantiated will not be permitted. In addition, claims referring to rates or amounts of weight loss, as well as claims referring to recommendations of individual doctors will be banned. Health claims on alcoholic beverages above 1.2 % will also not be allowed, except those referring to a reduction in alcohol or energy content, due to the link between alcohol and other health and social problems.
Are there any benefits for the food industry in the new rules?
The Regulation has many benefits to offer the food industry. Firstly, it recognises the importance of a clear regulatory environment for the food industry, which will allow greater legal security and a more predictable environment for food operators. The new rules will also serve to support innovation, as manufacturers will be encouraged to develop food and drink products for which health and nutrition claims can genuinely be made. It is also a way of preventing unfair competition from unscrupulous manufacturers using false or misleading claims. It should be noted that health and nutrition claims are voluntarily put on products by producers as a marketing tool. If positive claims cannot be established, the Regulation does not oblige anyone to make negative claims about the product.
What measures will start to apply immediately from July 1st, and what provisions are subject to a transitional period?
From ) and which do not meet the requirements of the Regulation must be phased out and removed from the market. No new trademarks or brand names which imply health or nutritional benefits will be allowed to be put on the EU market unless the claims implied can be substantiated, in line with the provisions of the Regulation. However, certain generic descriptors (e.g. Digestives, aperitifs) may apply for derogation from this rule.July 1 2007, certain measures are immediately effective e.g. the ban on alcoholic beverages carrying claims, except those referring to a reduction in energy or alcohol content.
Also, new products put on the market must respect the conditions for nutritional claims which are set out in detail in the Annex of the Regulation e.g. the can only be labelled low fat if the product contains less than 3g of fat per 100g or 1.5g of fat per 100ml. Products already labelled or on the market before January 2007 may remain on the market with the old labels until January 2010. During this time, Member States can submit new claims that they want added to the Annex. From 2010, only nutritional claims included in the EU Annex will be allowed to be used.
Nutritional profiles will take 2 years to set – one year for an EFSA evaluation and one year for agreement with Member States through Comitology. Once they have been set, there will be another 2 year period before they begin to apply, to allow operators time to adjust.
For health function claims, Member States have one year to submit health claims they would like included in the EU positive list. It will take another 2 years after that for EFSA to evaluate these claims, and for a Comitology decision to be taken on a final list that can be used. This 3 year period will allow operators sufficient time to adapt to the new EU requirements.
The Commission will propose the same transitional period for the use of claims referring specifically to children's development and health. This proposal will be sent to the European Parliament and Council for adoption.
With regard to trade marks, existing brand names which suggest health benefits but do not meet the requirements of the Regulation must be entirely removed from the market within 15 years. This timeframe was considered to be a reasonable period for companies to make the necessary adjustments and changes to their branding.
EU justice commissioner calls for single EU prosecutor
EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security Franco Frattini [official profile] is moving forward with plans to create a single European Union prosecutor and strengthen the the EU's prosecutorial body Eurojust [official website], according to an interview with EUobserver published Wednesday. Frattini indicated that once EU leaders agree to the Reform Treaty [EU materials; JURIST news archive], the commission will proceed with proposals to establish regular channels for information exchange from member states to Eurojust, and also move to seek concessions from member states for a "more effective decision-making process" in the area of justice and home affairs. Frattini said that while the EU is unlikely to have a common criminal code, he hopes that there will be greater "harmonization" in the definition of certain criminal activities that often encompass multiple borders.
The UK government has insisted on four-non-negotiable "red lines" [JURIST report], objecting to any incorporation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights [European Parliament materials] or relinquishing control of the UK's common law and judicial and police system. Frattini said that he hopes that the UK government will, on its own accord, pass legislation incorporating the proposed reforms.
The UK government has insisted on four-non-negotiable "red lines" [JURIST report], objecting to any incorporation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights [European Parliament materials] or relinquishing control of the UK's common law and judicial and police system. Frattini said that he hopes that the UK government will, on its own accord, pass legislation incorporating the proposed reforms.
Toys recalled over safety fears
Toymaker Fisher Price is to recall almost one and a half million Chinese-made toys over fears that their paint contains too much lead.
An internal probe found the Chinese manufacturer had used a non-approved paint pigment, violating its safety standards, the company said.
The recall affects toys that have been on sale in the US and UK since May.
It is the latest in a series of safety scares involving goods - food, drugs and other products - made in China.
China has pledged to introduce tougher quality controls on products, but sought to stem international alarm over the latest incident by insisting that 99% of its exports are safe.
Mattel Inc, which owns Fisher Price, said the recall affected toys, including characters popular with young children such as Sesame Street's Big Bird and Elmo, and Nickelodeon's Dora the Explorer.
About 900,000 have been sold in the US with around half a million sold in the UK and elsewhere.
The company said that it was removing the products from shops and would intercept incoming shipments.
"We are still concluding the investigation, how it happened," Fisher Price's general manager, David Allmark, told the Associated Press news agency.
"But there will be a dramatic investigation on how this happened. We will learn from this," he said.
Lead is toxic and can pose a health risk to young children if ingested.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission urged parents to remove the affected toys from their children and contact Fisher Price.
Other countries, including the UK, Mexico and Canada, are reported to be affected by the recall.
Almost 100,000 of the affected toys have been sold in the UK and Ireland, said Mattel UK.
Tainted products
China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai insisted on Thursday that the country "attaches great importance to the quality and safety of its products".
"More than 99% of the products China exports are of good quality and are safe," he said in a statement on the ministry's website.
"We hope that the relevant sides will handle Chinese products in an objective, fair and rational manner. This should not impact on the normal development of trade".
Beijing has accused foreign media of exaggerating problems with Chinese products, but has admitted that safety standards need to improve.
In recent weeks, it has taken steps to show it is taking the issue of quality control seriously.
Earlier this month it closed down three companies and arrested several people involved in food and drug scandals that have caused alarm both at home and abroad.
It follows a series of scares in the US in recent months, involving products such as fish, seafood, toothpaste and tyres from China.
In June, toymaker RC2 recalled 1.5 million Chinese-made toy trains after they were found to be coated in paint containing lead.
Earlier this month, US President George W Bush set up a panel to look at the safety of food and other products imported into the US.
The White House denied the move was aimed specifically at China, saying it is important to check all imports.
Aviation Emissions Best Tackled Through Cooperation, Innovation
Imposition of EU scheme on others viewed as unlawful, unhelpful
Washington -- Addressing aviation emissions requires that countries cooperate globally and seek innovative solutions rather than try to impose their own plans on other nations’ airlines, U.S. officials and experts say.
Some countries and international aviation organizations have acknowledged that more needs to be done to address relatively small, but growing, greenhouse gas emissions produced by aircraft, and already have taken steps to address them. The aviation sector is responsible for only 3 percent of the total emissions of gases that are believed to contribute to global warming. In contrast, power-generation and the transportation sector as a whole represent 33 percent and 21 percent respectively of those emissions.
During the 2000-2006 period, while air traffic was increasing, the United States actually reduced jet fuel consumption, and thereby reduced greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons through air traffic improvements, operational changes and technological innovation. In June, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. civil aviation regulator, launched a major initiative to develop alternative aircraft fuels that produce fewer emissions.
The European Union (EU), however, has taken a different approach. In 2006, it issued a proposal to include air carriers in its broader carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme. By unilaterally including foreign airlines serving European destinations, the EU created a controversy that threatens to slow down collaborative international efforts on the issue, according to U.S. officials.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the U.N. agency charged with promoting aviations standards and best practices, has endorsed emission trading but only with the consent of affected countries. The EU has not sought such consent and faced almost universal opposition from non-European countries, including the United States, that would be affected by the regulation beginning in 2012.
“We do intend to push back very hard on the EU on this,” Transportation Secretary Mary Peters told U.S. lawmakers in May.
In June, the FAA and the European Commission established a public-private partnership to develop and implement operational practices and technologies to reduce airline emissions. On such measures, there is broad international agreement.
On implementation of an emissions trading scheme for international aviation, however, “we are still very far apart," says Megan Walklet-Tighe, a senior expert in the State Department’s Office of Transportation Policy. The United States disagrees with the unilateral nature of the EU’s proposed legislation, asserting that it is unlawful, she said in an interview.
The U.S. administration is focused on trying to reach an agreement on the issue in ICAO, Walklet-Tighe said. The triennial ICAO assembly in September is expected to finalize guidance for states on a variety of environmental measures and principles, including how best to address aviation greenhouse gas emissions. ICAO Secretary-General Taïeb Chérif said that countries should be free to select such measures they consider most cost-effective.
The EU has argued that ICAO does not work fast enough. But the large majority of countries doubt that action to reduce aviation emissions must be “a European one-size-fits-all solution,” said Walklet-Tighe, given that the experiences of countries all over the world are different.
She and other U.S. officials pointed out that the EU plan does not include measures with the greatest potential for immediate and cost-effective emission reduction, such as improvements in the European air traffic management system.
The EU has not made much progress in implementing the Single European Sky, a proposed “borderless” air-traffic management system that promises to produce $4.5 billion in savings and reduce emissions by 12 percent, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade group.
The EU aviation emission trading plan is opposed by most international airlines, including European ones, because it would lead to fare increases and larger expenses by an industry already burdened with higher costs of fuel and security. A June study commissioned by airlines and aircraft producers estimates the compliance with the EU regulation would cost airlines $60 billion-$90 billion between 2011 and 2022 and lower their profits by $55 billion in the same period.
The plan does not prevent duplication of aviation emission taxes and charges being considered by the European Parliament and national governments that could add to the overall costs.
International airlines have vowed to pressure the EU to reconsider the proposal. If it becomes law, however, it could lead to litigation on competition grounds, according to Mark Bisset, an aviation lawyer at the Stephenson Hardwood law firm. The EU proposal affects more carriers serving longer routes, for example Asian airlines, than those flying shorter ones.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State John Byerly said the controversy could turn into a bitter dispute similar to a long-running fight over a unilateral EU airline noise regulation in the 1990s. In 2001, the EU was forced to withdraw the regulation, following legal proceedings initiated by the U.S. government.
The full text of the U.S. transportation secretary’s testimony is available on the House of Representatives’ Transportation Committee Web site. More information on the U.S. position on the EU plan is available on the FAA Web site.
EU considers extra travel security measures
The EU is looking into introducing an electronic travel authorisation system after a similar system was approved in the US last week.
"We are considering introducing this [system] here. A final decision has not yet been taken," said a spokesman for justice commissioner Franco Frattini on Tuesday (7 August).
He went on to add that the EU would have to look at whether the scheme introduced more security benefits to passengers than travel inconvenience.
"We are considering introducing this [system] here. A final decision has not yet been taken," said a spokesman for justice commissioner Franco Frattini on Tuesday (7 August).
He went on to add that the EU would have to look at whether the scheme introduced more security benefits to passengers than travel inconvenience.
For further information please visit: http://euobserver.com/9/24577
Volume, Value and Unit Value Change. Volume and Value share per destination
China's Polyester Filament Fabric Exports in First Half 2007 Statistical Report
Exports of China's polyester filament fabrics stabilized in the first half this year, even rising in US$ terms thanks to higher prices. Sales to India, Pakistan, Brazil and Turkey are soaring, while European anti-dumping duties continue limiting shipments to EU's markets.
China's exports of polyester filament fabrics (made from textured yarns and dyed) were stable in the first half of the year with sharp differences in results on different Asian markets, however.
Sales to Asia and the Middle East remained predominant while EU's market is still protected by anti-dumping duties imposed on polyester filament fabrics from China.
Exports to the trading firms in the United Arab Emirates (mainly Dubai) continued ranking first although they declined 24% in value terms in only two years.
Direct shipments to Pakistan and India sharply increased at the same time, respectively up 25% and 57% in the first half this year.
By contrast, sales to Iran fell 44%, being cut by 55% in only two years.
Exports to Turkey and Brazil rose, not surprisingly, as both major textile markets are boosted by the rise in domestic currencies.
Shipments to Turkey even doubled in US$ terms from the first half last year.
While fabrics are sold at very low prices to Brazil -at only 64 cents per square meter-, they are bought at much higher price of US$1.20 by Turkish apparel producers.
Outside Germany, where shipments fell 29% in two years, Finland became the most important market of the European Union with Chinese exports nearly doubling in the first half and finally 2.5 times higher than two years ago.
After last year falling, sales to Italy and France partly recovered.
The slowdown in Chinese exports of polyester filament fabrics to the European Union is a clear sign that future anti-dumping duties may negatively affect textile and apparel sales to this major market in the coming years.
Anti-dumping duties on polyester fabrics were preferred to new quotas by EU's Commission and the successful test could lead to similar investigations and decisions after quantitative restrictions will be removed at the end of the year.
'Sharp rise' in Chinese patents
China has seen a sharp increase in requests for patents, according to the UN's intellectual property agency.
The number of requests for patents in China grew by 33% in 2005 compared with the previous year.
That gives it the world's third highest number behind Japan and the United States, the agency said.
China's leaders have been urging companies to become more creative, and put more of their money into developing new technology.
Backing innovation
China has established itself as the heart of the world economy but it is not the brains.
Most of the products it produces are invented and designed elsewhere.
So the profit that China makes on every laptop or DVD player it produces is very small. Cheap labour and huge volumes are what drive profits in China.
But that may be changing. China appears to be becoming more creative.
The country filed over 170,000 patents in 2005, up by a third on the year before, according to the World Intellectual Property Agency.
The survey is a good indication of innovation.
So that is good news for China's leadership, who have been encouraging companies to invest in research and development.
China knows it cannot bet its future economic success on low wages alone. Other countries are already cheaper.
"Made by China" rather than simply "Made in China" will mean that the country's economic miracle stands a far better chance of lasting longer.
Gordon Brown defies EU referendum calls
Gordon Brown has vowed to resist the growing clamour for a referendum on the proposed new EU treaty, insisting that Parliament should have the final say.
Speaking after his first Downing Street summit with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and architect of the new Brussels blueprint, the Prime Minister played down signs of a Labour rebellion over the issue.
Despite another trade union, Unison, joining calls yesterday for a national vote, Mr Brown said he believed the TUC annual congress next month would back his policy and avoid a damaging clash with the Labour leadership.
Mr Brown said: "Let's see what the TUC do. My own view is that the TUC when it meets will support the Government.
"The proper way to discuss this is in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and I believe Parliament will pass the legislation."
The Prime Minister's defiant stance came as unions, MPs and activists stepped up their demands to put the treaty, which extends the powers of the main EU institutions, to a referendum.
Plans were unveiled for a cross-party rally in London, possibly in Trafalgar Square, on Oct 27 to launch a series of pro-referendum events.
The rallies are being spearheaded by the Campaign for an Independent Britain, which favours complete withdrawal from the EU, but a spokesman stressed the initiative would embrace "softer" eurosceptic groups and include both Tory and Labour MPs.
The Daily Telegraph's "let the people decide" petition for a referendum has now passed 55,000 signatures - a rise of 5,000 in just two days.
Gwyneth Dunwoody became the latest Labour MP to signal that a referendum was needed.
She indicated to the BBC that although "I don't really approve of referendums", the Commons might not be the place to decide the issue.
She added that "we need to think very carefully about saying to people 'read what this thing is about and decide whether you want it' ".
But the Government continued to insist that the new treaty was not a constitution and therefore did not require a referendum.
Sweet Temptations look to appoint German distributor for new and exclusive range of promotional ethical chocolate Advent calendars
Leading UK provider of promotional confectionery and BPMA member company Sweet Temptations are looking to appoint a German distributor to represent their new and exclusive range of promotional ethical Advent calendars in the run up to Christmas.
In the UK personalised Advent calendars form an important element of Christmas promotional activity and Sweet Temptations is keen to offer their enhanced product offering as a revenue driving opportunity to a German distributor within their designated territory.
EU bows to industry on Chinese light bulbs
The European Commission has given in to industry pressure and extended the bloc's import duties on environment-friendly light bulbs made in China for another year.
Critics argue the move is against Brussels' proclaimed support for energy efficiency and Europe's climate change ambitions.
Despite his previous intention, trade commissioner Peter Mandelson on Wednesday (29 August) suggested the EU's anti-dumping measure should go in a year, rather than straight away.
For more information please visit: http://euobserver.com/9/24656
Critics argue the move is against Brussels' proclaimed support for energy efficiency and Europe's climate change ambitions.
Despite his previous intention, trade commissioner Peter Mandelson on Wednesday (29 August) suggested the EU's anti-dumping measure should go in a year, rather than straight away.
For more information please visit: http://euobserver.com/9/24656
Deutsche Post mulling free newspaper launch
German mail and logistics group Deutsche Post is planning to launch a free newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS) said. A Deutsche Post spokesman told Reuters on Sunday that such a freesheet would be ‘a legitimate idea’ but that ‘there are no concrete plans at present.’ The European Union wants to liberalise the postal services market in the 27-nation bloc from 2009 and Deutsche Post is under pressure to find new sources of revenue as its national monopoly on letter deliveries ends in 2008. Earlier attempts to launch free newspapers in Germany, Europe's largest economy, have met with stiff opposition from the country's established newspaper publishers. (Reuters)
Repak calls for tighter legislation controls
Growth in packaging recycling in Ireland and escalation in related costs have prompted producer responsibility scheme Repak to call for tighter controls on companies who ignore or flout EU waste legislation to safeguard future growth targets.
In its annual results Repak found that packaging recycling had risen by 7%. But that the cost of collecting and processing this material had grown by 26%.
Currently, Irish legislation requires industry to deal with the recovery and recycling of its packaging waste under EU waste legislation. Companies with a turnover of more than EURO 1 million and which produce more than 25 tonnes of packaging must either join a collective producer responsibility scheme (Repak) or accept packaging back from their customers, which is called Self Compliance. However, loose control of companies exercising self compliance and companies that completely ignore regulations mean that the burden of future cost will not be spread fairly across industry.
The scheme funds the recovery and recycling of about 64% of packaging, which is paid for by members of the scheme. But despite recent membership growth the members of the scheme only account for 61% of the total packaging produced despite funding 100% of its recycling.
One solution under consideration is the reduction of the De Minmis threshold, which would reduce the 25 tonnes threshold which requires compliance to 10 tonnes.
Repak chief executive Andrew Hetherington said: “To meet future national recycling targets, more will need to be recycled from the domestic bin which will see costs rise significantly. This means industry will need to pay more but we believe the proposed reduction in the De Minmis threshold in the Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations (threshold for obligation) from 25 tonnes to 10 tonnes will play an important role in increasing compliance with the Regulations and spreading the burden of future cost increases across more businesses than Repak’s current 2,200 members.”
In its annual results Repak found that packaging recycling had risen by 7%. But that the cost of collecting and processing this material had grown by 26%.
Currently, Irish legislation requires industry to deal with the recovery and recycling of its packaging waste under EU waste legislation. Companies with a turnover of more than EURO 1 million and which produce more than 25 tonnes of packaging must either join a collective producer responsibility scheme (Repak) or accept packaging back from their customers, which is called Self Compliance. However, loose control of companies exercising self compliance and companies that completely ignore regulations mean that the burden of future cost will not be spread fairly across industry.
The scheme funds the recovery and recycling of about 64% of packaging, which is paid for by members of the scheme. But despite recent membership growth the members of the scheme only account for 61% of the total packaging produced despite funding 100% of its recycling.
One solution under consideration is the reduction of the De Minmis threshold, which would reduce the 25 tonnes threshold which requires compliance to 10 tonnes.
Repak chief executive Andrew Hetherington said: “To meet future national recycling targets, more will need to be recycled from the domestic bin which will see costs rise significantly. This means industry will need to pay more but we believe the proposed reduction in the De Minmis threshold in the Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations (threshold for obligation) from 25 tonnes to 10 tonnes will play an important role in increasing compliance with the Regulations and spreading the burden of future cost increases across more businesses than Repak’s current 2,200 members.”
11th September 2007