The China-EU trade war begins, China adopts divide and conquer approach

As expected, China did not take the new tariffs on its exports of solar panels to the EU lying down, nor did it see it simply as an ‘opportunity to negotiate’ as the Commission suggested.

China has announced that it is investigating illegal EU subsidies to the EU wine industry. The rational is, as the Chinese Commerce Ministry put it, because, "Wine imports from the EU enter our market via dumping, subsidies and other unfair trade practices, and have hit our wine production."

Our headline is of course exaggerated for effect but the main point stands. This dispute has escalated significantly with the retaliation now raising the prospect of a tit-for-tat trade dispute.

It’s also been well documented that the EU is divided on this issue, with quite a few countries (led by Germany) openly expressing their opposition to the Commission’s tariffs. Other more traditionally protectionist countries have been decidedly less vocal. With this in mind, it’s interesting that China has launched an investigation which focuses on a sector heavily located in France and the Mediterranean rather than one in Germany. This could be a mere coincidence, but then it could not.

AFP reports that French President Francois Hollande has called for an EU-27 meeting to be convened to discuss the issue and create a united EU position on it (possibly to counter such a divide and conquer approach).

There are a few other interesting points to note with this investigation:

• The Chinese do have a case given the influence of the CAP, which still provides significant subsidies to farms including vineyards.
• It’s hard to say exactly how large the subsidies are. Under the reformed CAP programme in 2008, National Support Programmes for wine growers totalled €2.8bn.
• As with much Chinese data it’s hard to pin down the exact size of the market. The Commission notes that in 2011 China and Hong Kong together accounted for €1.47bn in wine exports from the EU. This has certainly increased since then as China represents one of the largest growth markets for wine. Reuters suggests that Chinese imports of wine amount to €1bn from France alone.
• Whatever the size, this market is smaller than the solar panel one. EU imports of solar panels from China amount to around €21bn.

EU offers China “window of opportunity” to settle solar-panel row but proceeds with watered down tariffs

Soon to be more expensive?

The EU-China trade row over cheap Chinese solar panels flooding the European market has been raging on for several weeks now and is threatening to escalate into a full blown trade dispute. 

On one side, the EU has firmly maintained that it will impose anti-dumping tariffs. On the other, China has postured that any such move will lead to economic retaliation.

Meanwhile, somewhere in between, a number of EU member-states (led by Germany) have come out supporting China, fearful the row could hamper national trade-interests with the Asian monolith.

Against this increasingly tense background, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht today presented the Commission’s provisional findings in the anti-dumping case on solar panel imports from China, key points from his press conference below.

• There will be temporary tariffs imposed, which will play out in two phases: 11.8% from 6 June, and 47.6% from 6 August.
• De Gucht maintained that this was a “reasonable” decision that had nothing to do with protectionism. He said that Chinese “overproduction” of solar panels had allowed it to flood the European market with a cut-price product, which, he estimated, should cost 88% more.
• So in the short term, the Commission sees the tariffs on China, in De Gucht’s words as an "emergency measure to give life-saving oxygen" to a threatened EU solar industry. In the long term, the Commission says it is upholding to the principles of fair trade.

Open Europe’s take on the decision:

Although De Gucht is probably correct to say he is simply applying the rules as written, we ultimately believe applying the tariffs at such a high level is the wrong decision for a number of reasons:

• Firstly, solar (and renewable energy generally) is subsidised everywhere to some extent. If it didn’t need to be it would be the obvious energy resource for the whole world. This makes it very difficult to judge what the ‘fair’ level of subsidy is or how the market would look without them.
• In this vein, the whole EU market arose due to significant subsidies and would be unlikely to continue without them in some form (see our previous post for more detail). This makes the claim of protecting jobs and the EU solar industry a bit of a misnomer.
• Consumers will lose out as prices could well rise from this. At the very least they will be presented with less choice.
• Many producers and services built around the wider solar industry could struggle as they have become reliant on the cheap Chinese imports.
• These nuances could show that some competition laws (and not just in the EU) need to be reassessed to account for complex and global markets.
• The potential for retaliation remains concerning. This could cause harm to the EU's significant trading relationship with China at a time when Europe can least afford it.
• As De Gucht himself seemed to note, no decision is made in isolation and the political implications of such a decision should be taken on board. There is also an inherent tension here given that, although the power to judge Competition Policy has be passed onto the EU, Foreign Policy and international relations remain very much in national hands (as they should). Policies which cross this boundary must take account of national preferences in this area.

Where do we go from here?

All that said, the Commission has thankfully left itself with an ‘out’ and rowed back significantly on its original hard line position. Using the staggered tariff rate and the two month period for negotiation eases the impact of the decision. Although, relations will likely be tense in the immediate aftermath.

The Commission insistence that the ‘onus’ is now on China will probably not go down well. Whether China will play ball and reach an ‘amicable’ agreement as the EU wishes remains to be seen. It will certainly make for an interesting summer of negotiations.

Unintended consequences: could tariffs on Chinese imports actually harm the EU's solar panel industry?

The past few weeks have seen a marked increase in hostilities between China and the EU over the ongoing trade dispute, centred on the solar industry. Given that it’s between two of the largest economies in the world, this dispute is not to be sniffed at.

As the WSJ noted last week, the Chinese government has increased its rhetoric against the recent EU trade investigation in illegal subsidies to solar panels imported to the EU from China, while the threat of similar action on telecommunications is deepening the divide. Tensions peaked over the weekend with the Chinese delegation to the EU putting out a press release containing a veiled threat of retaliation if the EU pushes ahead with tariffs and other protectionist measures.

Below we lay out some background and key points on the solar panel case which is driving the dispute.

So what's going on here?

• To recap, last September, DG Trade at the European Commission launched an anti-dumping investigation into whether imports of Chinese solar panels and their components were being given unfair subsidies by the Chinese government. The investigation was launched after a complaint by EU ProSun, a collective of European solar firms. This group is led by the EU’s largest solar firm Solar World. Solar World was instrumental in pushing similar action in the US (which also instituted tariffs).
• DG Trade has announced that imports of Chinese solar panels will face tariffs of between 37.3% to 67.9% from 6 June 2013, although the exact amount will vary from firm to firm (until that date the ruling can of course be altered). This ruling is temporary and the duties are provisional since the investigation (and other similar ones) are still on-going. Once the investigation is complete the findings are presented and the issue is put to the Council of Ministers for a vote on whether to impose permanent duties.

There are a lot of different legal, economic and political points to consider here.  It is clear that the Chinese firms are receiving significant subsidies and by the letter of the law there should probably be some tariffs.

However, this episode obscures a much more fundamental point: the EU’s solar panel market is to a large extent unsustainable. In the early 2000’s Solar firms were given significant subsidies, especially in Germany, and were able to expand rapidly despite being barely commercially viable. Once the eurozone crisis hit, and governments had to start cutting spending, the subsidies dried up.

Ironically, cheap imports from China are likely to have played a significant role in supporting this market as public subsidies in Europe wound down (by helping to bring down production cost). Similarly, given the variety of cheaper options available, solar cannot yet be commercially competitive without some form of government support – be this directly from Europe (which cannot afford it at the moment) or indirectly from China. So, again, ironically, there's a risk that the tariffs contribute to killing off Europe's own solar market - raising questions about the Commission's claim that the tariffs are needed to protect 25,000 European jobs.

This is also a classic example of large firms using their market position to lobby the EU to take action to lock in the status quo. Larger firms such as Solar World are keen on the tariffs and/or other protectionist measures while smaller firms (that are looking to partner up with and import cheap components from Chinese firms) are reluctant.

Finally, whilst the Chinese government isn't exactly whiter than snow, the EU must be very careful not to trigger a trade war - not only would it be economically damaging, but the EU's trade image would also be seriously damaged.

Finding a compromise should be the short term goal, but over the longer term it poses an interesting question over how national policies impact other countries (see also the prospects for currency wars) and what can be done to manage this. This dispute should also force the EU to consider its position on heavily subsidised markets which are very rarely viable over the medium and long term.

So, what next? The dispute is likely to continue, although a statement last night by EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht did show some signs of conciliation. A decision on whether to impose the temporary tariffs will be needed by the 5 June - if they are imposed then the dispute could escalate quickly. These would run until December when the investigation is complete at which point the findings and prospect of permanent tariffs would be put to the Council of Ministers.