Brussels, Belgium
February 21, 2003
DN: MEMO/03/41 Date: 21/02/2003
Authorisation of an additive (avilamycin) in feedingstuffs
The Council agreed to extend the provisional authorisation for
use of avilamycin - an antibiotic preparation - as a growth
promotor in feed for turkeys. Commissioner Byrne said that the
granting of the authorisation of avilamycin does not in any way
change the policy on the phasing out of antibiotics, which has
been proposed for the end of 2005.
Official food and feed controls
Commissioner Byrne presented this essential piece of legislation
adopted by the Commission on 5 February. (see COM(2003) 52 -
IP/03/182 - MEMO/03/24). The proposed Regulation will streamline
and reinforce the existing control system with added bite,
consisting of stricter enforcement mechanisms. It is intended to
address the deficiencies of the current rules: patchy and
fragmented systems, lack of overall coherence and synergy, lack
of definition of responsibilities, non understanding of our
requirements by developing countries. The new legislation will
improve the efficiency of Member State control services through
better definition of tasks, harmonisation and integration of
controls across the entire food and feed chain. It will define
enforcement measures, including sanctions, and will assist
developing countries. Commissioner Mr Byrne concluded by placing
this proposal as the third and final and final element of the
new food safety system foreshadowed by the White Paper of
January 2000.
GMOs and co-existence
The Council held a discussion on co-existence. Commissioner
Fischler noted that co-existence meant that farmers should be
able to choose the agricultural production systems they prefer.
"This will be particularly important once the authorisations of
new GMOs resume and genetically modified crops are grown on a
larger scale in the EU. What is at stake here are the economic
consequences that conventional or organic farmers could incur if
they have to sell their crops at a lower price because of
adventitious presence of GMOs above the authorised threshold
level. Of course, it can also work the other way round. If a GM
crop has specific qualities and therefore sells at a price
premium, admixture with non-GM crops could reduce its value.
Fischler announced that he would present a paper to the College
on 5 March as a basis for an orientation debate on co-existence.
"I hope that we will come out of this debate with some clear
policy orientations and a concrete timetable for the future
work. One thing that should be clear is that we all need to work
together to find a realistic and sustainable solution to this
highly complex issue. In order to facilitate this process, the
Commission is organising a Round Table on co-existence at the
end of April.
This Round Table shall provide an opportunity for discussion and
an exchange of information among a wide range of experts and
stakeholders." He further mentioned that the Commission was
continuing to promote research activities in this area.
On GM food, Commissioner Byrne clarified that the Novel Foods
Regulation remains the legal provision in force. New products
would be looked at on a case by case basis. A technical meeting
with member State experts will be held on 7 March to review all
pending applications under the Novel Foods Regulation and to
check which applications can be processed under the existing
rules and which are likely to be converted into applications
under the new legal framework. Commissioner Byrne emphasised
that the purpose of this technical meeting was not to take
decisions on any authorisations.
WTO and agriculture: debate on Harbinson paper
The Council held a debate on the ongoing WTO negotiations on
agriculture. The Commissioner said "We had hoped that Mr.
Harbinson would come forward with a paper which offered a
possibility of at least starting to move the membership of the
WTO towards an agreed position. Unfortunately, this was not the
case.
Export subsidisation
"Mr. Harbinson proposes to phase out completely this policy
instrument in nine years, with a significant down-payment. On
the other hand, those WTO Members, and particularly the US,
which use export credits or abuse of food aid to subsidise
exports, in a totally trade-distorting way, are not asked in the
Harbinson text to accept any comparable discipline. On the
contrary, for export credits, there is what appears at first
sight to be a proposal for an impressive framework proposed to
discipline this form of trade distortion except that there are
built in escape clauses.
"Similarly, for food aid there is what first appears to be a
valid proposal to eliminate abuse of food aid for purposes of
surplus disposal; except that here too, the system is porous,
since a request from a beneficiary country (not necessarily
justified), or the channelling through any private charitable
body not a difficult thing to set up is exempted from
disciplines.
"In short, for both export credits and abuse of food aid, the
proposed disciplines have huge loopholes. These disciplines do
not in any way compare to that proposed for direct export
subsidies. The proposal does not, therefore, respond to the Doha
commitment to discipline all forms of export subsidy.
Domestic support
"The Harbinson paper treats the blue box almost the same way as
the amber box, which suggests that Mr. Harbinson considers the
two forms of support amber and blue as comparably trade
distorting. But the principle underlying the treatment of the
blue box in the Uruguay Round was that support linked to
production limitation was clearly less trade distorting than
unlimited support. And recent OECD analysis has confirmed that
this principle was correct, clearly demonstrating that the amber
box is about four times as trade distorting as the blue box. Why
then should blue box support be capped, and reduced at almost
the same rate as amber box support?
"On the other hand, domestic policies using the most trade
distorting policy instruments, with abundant use of the de
minimis loophole, are in fact treated better. This is the case
of the US, for example, where use of the de minimis provision in
1999 exempted a huge $8 billion from their reduction commitment,
compared with their $16 billion notification under their
ceiling. Given its trade distorting nature, we had proposed the
elimination of the de minimis provision for developed countries.
In the Harbinson paper this loophole is maintained with only a
50% reduction. So the most trade distorting form of support is
in the end treated rather more gently that a form of support
which is only one-quarter as trade distorting: how can this be
reconciled with the basic objective of our negotiations?
And how does this represent a balanced approach?
Market access
"On market access, I regret to say that in our view, the balance
between reducing tariffs and expanding access for developing
countries that would characterise this round as a development
round is lost. Further market access becomes an instrument to
accommodate developed exporters, instead of a means to
differentiate access for the benefit of the developing world.
Non Trade Concerns
"Finally, one the key objectives contained in the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) is absent from the Chairman's draft:
apart from one single issue (animal welfare) the text appears to
ignore the commitment to take non-trade concerns into account in
the negotiations. There can be no doubt about the importance of
these issues, not only for the EU but also for many other WTO
members and for civil society in general. But in fact, none of
these issues have received more than a cursory reference to the
need to decide what to do with them! Indeed, on one issue
investment for environmental purposes the proposal actually cuts
back aid that up to now was permitted: where does that leave
policies aimed at encouraging higher environmental standards a
key non-trade concern amongst many Members? In other words, the
reflection in Mr. Harbinson's paper of the real concerns of a
significant number of members regarding non-trade concerns is
simply lacking.
"In Tokyo we insisted on the need for a fair balance of interest
if agreement is to be reached. This balance was lacking in the
paper, which put the burden mainly on those who pursue policies
which, while moving away from trade distortion, nevertheless
reflect objectives linked to social, economic and environmental
sustainability, and not just untrammelled free trade. The other
main losers in the paper were the more vulnerable developing
countries. The clear winners were the strong exporting
countries, and those who have not shown the same commitment to
move away from the most trade distorting form of support.
"But now the hard part starts. We have to continue to press for
a draft modalities paper which is balanced but this clearly will
need considerable movement, both on the part of Mr. Harbinson
and of those members of the WTO who achieved all their
objectives, and more, in the first draft at absolutely no cost
to themselves. A comprehensive, realistic and balanced proposal
is, I believe, what we should work to obtain. My conclusion is
that we therefore need a "Harbinson Mark 2" which is more
conceptual and more balanced.", Fischler stated.
There was broad consensus on the Commissioner's assessment.
CAP reform
The Council took note of a progress report on the CAP reform in
the Council's working group and the Special Committee on
Agriculture (SCA).
State aids Italy
Italy presented a request to authorise state aid for Italian
co-operatives. In response, the Commissioner said that the exact
scope of the request was not clear. "This should be clarified on
the technical level. But I want to point out that the Council
has exceptionally authorised € 100 million some years ago. Now
Italy claims to need another € 118 million for the same problem.
The Commission is afraid that these aids are granted without the
necessary transparency and may lead to distortions of
competition", he said.
The Council decided to refer the issue to the SCA for further
discussion.
Bad weather conditions in Greece
Greece gave initial information on damage caused by adverse
weather conditions in Greece. According to Greece, the extent of
damage will be evaluated and presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Fischler responded that once it was clear what
damaged had been caused, the Commission would consider how to
proceed.
|