April 24, 2024

E.U. Officials Impatient Over Lack of Progress on Trade Pact With U.S.

FRANKFURT — American and European officials are taking longer than expected to agree to begin free-trade talks, leading to some barely contained impatience among European political leaders who are hoping that President Barack Obama will signal support for a pact in his State of the Union address next month.

A joint statement by top U.S. and European trade officials was expected by the end of December or the beginning of this month, clearing the way for formal talks aimed at removing tariffs between the United States and the European Union, which are each other’s largest trading partners by far.

The continued absence of the statement, with no clear indication when it might come, has led to some frustration among European leaders, as well as among U.S. and European business groups who say that an accord could spur growth and job creation on both sides of the Atlantic.

“One is a bit impatient,” said Peter Beyer, a member of the German Parliament who has been involved in efforts to push trade talks forward. Mr. Beyer belongs to the center-right party led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, who like most euro zone leaders has expressed strong support for a trade accord.

Mr. Beyer and others involved in the issue said that they were not aware of any problem with the substance of a deal, and that they assumed the delay was a result of changes in the White House as Mr. Obama prepared to begin his second term.

“It has a lot to do with Obama building a new administration,” Mr. Beyer said.

There is considerable commerce at stake. Imports and exports between the United States and the European Union totaled $594 billion in the first 11 months of 2012. There is broad agreement in government and industry that both regions would benefit by eliminating tariffs and harmonizing regulations that apply to a broad range of products that include drugs, auto parts and even toys.

Among the groups filing statements last year in support of an agreement was the Spanish Toy Association, which complained that products approved for safety in Europe must be recertified in the United States and vice versa, adding unnecessary costs.

U.S. business groups have also been pushing energetically for talks to begin, arguing that the economic impact could be substantial because the overall volume of trade is so large.

“This is an important opportunity for both sides to get their economies going again, and we hope there will be positive recommendation by the end of the month,” said Peter H. Chase, vice president for Europe at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Brussels.

While some food producers and other industry groups have expressed concerns about what the provisions of a deal might be, there does not seem to be any broad-based opposition. But because the United States and European Union are both so large, reaching an agreement will be extremely complex.

Andrea Mead, a spokeswoman for the U.S. trade representative in Washington, was unable to provide much detail on progress on a free-trade agreement.

“We know there is a lot of interest in whether we will decide with our E.U. colleagues to launch F.T.A. negotiations,” she said Monday. “Our work in that regard is ongoing. We want to take the time to get the substance right so that any agreement we might pursue would maximize job-supporting economic opportunities.”

The most optimistic estimates are that an accord could be reached by the end of the year, but it could take longer.

A so-called High Level Working Group, made up of top trade officials from the United States and the European Union, was originally supposed to issue a statement in November that would establish a broad framework for detailed negotiations.

That deadline was then delayed until December or early January. There is still no firm indication when it might come.

Proponents of a deal would be delighted if Mr. Obama were to make even a glancing reference to an agreement when he makes his State of the Union address on Feb. 12.

The president’s endorsement would send a signal of encouragement to the hundreds of midlevel officials who would have to do the mind-numbing work involved in formulating an accord.

“That would be very positive,” said Mr. Beyer, the member of the German Parliament. “I don’t know how realistic that is.”

The United States and Europe have been discussing a trade pact informally since the 1990s. But despite widespread agreement that a comprehensive pact would be good for both economies, progress has been achingly slow.

Governments may have been put off by the complexity of the negotiations that would be needed, and they were also preoccupied with opening up new markets in Asia and other fast-growing regions.

In addition, because the United States and European Union are each accustomed to being the dominant power in trade talks, it will take some adjusting to negotiate with a trade partner on roughly equal terms.

Still, with Europe struggling to emerge from a recession, leaders including the British prime minister, David Cameron, have argued that a free-trade deal would be both a cheap and a relatively painless way to stimulate growth.

Mr. Cameron said this month that reaching an agreement would be his priority as Britain takes over the rotating leadership of the G-8 group of wealthy nations.

Another impetus will come from Ireland, which this month assumed the rotating presidency of the European Union. Ireland is the only member of the euro zone where English is an official language, making it a favored gateway for U.S. companies and giving Ireland an especially keen stake in smoother trade relations.

U.S. companies that maintain headquarters or very large operations in Ireland include Dell, Google, Microsoft and Pfizer.

Richard Bruton, the Irish minister for jobs, enterprise and innovation, said in a statement that a trade deal could lift the E.U. economy by €120 billion, or $160 billion, per year and the U.S. economy by $100 billion.

“Gains of that scale are invaluable at a time like this,” he said.

Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/business/global/eu-officials-impatient-over-lack-of-progress-on-trade-pact-with-us.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Green Column: The Battle Over Aviation Emissions

Much is at stake for Europe, which has sought to burnish its identity as a significant international actor partly by leading the world on climate protection.

Airlines would have to account for the emissions for the entirety of any flight that takes off from, or that lands at, any airport in Europe — even if that flight begins or ends in faraway cities like Beijing and San Francisco.

The initiative involves folding aviation into the Union’s six-year-old Emissions Trading System, in which polluters can buy and sell a limited quantity of permits, each representing a ton of carbon dioxide.

The goal is to speed up the adoption of greener technologies at a time when air traffic, which represents about 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, is growing much faster than gains in efficiency.

Airlines should be able to pass on the costs of permits — most of which they will receive for free — in the form of higher ticket prices, which could rise by as much as €12, or nearly $16, on some long-haul flights.

Even so, many airlines are furious, partly because the cost of compliance could rise sharply in coming years if governments decide airlines must buy a larger proportion of their permits and if demand for the permits and their value rises.

Some of the sternest opposition has come from Europe’s most important trading partners. They have accused Europe of riding roughshod over their national sovereignty.

China and the United States were among two dozen countries calling on Europe to modify or scrap its plans with just weeks to go before the system goes into force.

A judgment at the European Court of Justice expected Wednesday in a case brought by major U.S. airlines against the measures seems unlikely to ease the tensions.

The litigation began when the industry group Air Transport Association of America (since renamed Airlines for America) and three major airlines — United and Continental, which merged last year, and American — complained at the High Court in London in 2009.

The parties argued that the law conflicted with existing aviation treaties and a swath of other agreements and principles. The British court then referred the case to the European court, the Union’s highest tribunal, for a preliminary ruling.

If the Europeans win — which seems likely after a senior adviser to the court in October dismissed most of the arguments put forward by the U.S. airlines — they will feel more confident about moving ahead with the policy.

But the matter would be unlikely to rest there, and there would be more diplomatic tussling and possibly more litigation.

A group of Chinese airlines could follow through on an earlier threat to bring a lawsuit, possibly in Germany, where the authorities will oversee the application of the system to a number of carriers from China.

The Chinese could argue that the European law violates the Kyoto climate agreement by requiring airlines from developing nations, which are exempt from emissions cuts under the Kyoto climate treaty, to bear the same burdens as airlines from wealthier nations.

The ruling on Wednesday could clarify whether a case can be brought on those grounds.

Algeria has already begun a case in France contesting the system, according to the Arab Air Carriers Organization, an industry group that includes the country’s main carrier, Air Algérie.

A spokeswoman for the organization gave no further details. The Algerian embassies in Paris and in Brussels did not return telephone and e-mail messages. A spokeswoman for Air Algérie had no immediate comment.

In the United States, the House of Representatives approved a bill this year that would ban U.S. airlines from participating in the system. A similar bill was introduced this month in the Senate.

The Europeans have offered to exempt incoming flights from the rules if those airlines come from a country with requirements comparable to its own.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/business/energy-environment/the-battle-over-aviation-emissions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss