The European Ombudsman has nullified the rights groups’ complaints against labour rights violation in Bangladesh and given verdict in favour of the country for continuing enjoyment of the GSP to the European markets.
Based on the inquiry, Emily O’Reilly, the European Ombudsman, found no maladministration in the case against Bangladesh filed by four rights groups, according to the EU website on March 24. “It is a very good news for Bangladesh as sometimes we are blamed of bad practice of labour rights by different quarters,” Rubana Huq, president of Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), said in an audio message yesterday. “Bangladesh is again saved from the bad name of unfair labour practices due to this verdict,” Huq added. The European Union (EU) is the largest export destination of Bangladesh. Bangladesh has been enjoying the zero-duty benefit on export to the EU under its Everything But Arms, the name of the EU’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), since 1971. With the zero duty benefit to the EU markets, Bangladesh eventually turned into the second largest apparel exporter after China, grabbing 6.4 percent of the more than $460 billion global market share of apparel items. In the fiscal 2018-19, Bangladesh exported garment items worth $21.13 billion to the EU including the UK. In the fiscal 2017-18, the amount was $19.62 billion and it was $17.75 billion in the fiscal 2016-17, according to data from the Export Promotion Bureau. The EU markets account for 63 percent of all apparel exports from Bangladesh and 58 percent of all exports from the country. Regarding the verdict, EU in a statement said in October 2016, four trade union organisations wrote to the European Commission (EC) alleging that Bangladesh did not comply with its obligations in the area of fundamental labour rights. They drew attention to very serious issues and urged the Commission to investigate this matter in the context of the GSP, the EU said in the statement on March 24. Dissatisfied with the fact that the Commission had failed to launch an investigation, the four rights groups — including International Trade Union Confederation, the Clean Clothes Campaign and HEC-NYU EU Public Interest Clinic — turned to the Ombudsman in June 2018. The Ombudsman noted that the complainants do not want the Commission to impose trade sanctions. Instead, they would like the Commission to use the withdrawal procedure as further incentive to make Bangladesh compliant with international commitments, notably regarding labour rights. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s explanations as to why it has so far considered that it would not be justified to initiate a withdrawal procedure against Bangladesh are reasonable. In this case, the Ombudsman found no evidence of maladministration in how the Commission has exercised its discretion or that its actions regarding Bangladesh are arbitrary and inconsistent with its approach in other cases (Myanmar, Belarus, Cambodia). “The Commission clearly shares the complainants’ concerns, and has been actively seeking to promote the respect for fundamental rights, including labour rights, in Bangladesh. Although this process may be long, it is for the Commission to determine how best to achieve this under the GSP.” The Ombudsman is also satisfied by the Commission’s explanations on how civil society participates in this process, and that the Commission takes the contributions of civil society into account. Accordingly, the Ombudsman closes this inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
