Brussels, 01/06/2010 (Agence Europe) - In a document supported by a majority of countries during a special agriculture committee (SAC) debate on the competitiveness of the European agri-foods model on Monday 31 May in Mérida, Spain, the Spanish Presidency declared: “We cannot, a priori, abandon Community instruments aimed at compensating the lack of competitiveness”. This is, in particular, caused by numerous standards that EU farmers and agri-food industries have to respect.
Any regulatory constraint - health, environmental or other - should be envisaged with “prudence”. EU agriculture now has to comply to all sorts of standards that increase costs and erode its international competitiveness with imports that are not subject to the same standards. This warning was made by the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers in a document submitted to SAC experts for the debate on the strengths and weaknesses of the European agricultural model. According to the Spanish Presidency, “Community instruments” should be maintained to compensate this “lack of competitiveness”, and “prudence is therefore essential in bringing in new requirements involving further costs that would reduce the competitiveness of European products”.
Overall, during the SAC in Spain around 20 countries gave their support to the ideas of the Spanish Presidency on how to compensate the lack of competitiveness in agriculture due to the burden of standards (animal welfare, animal health, environmental protection, phystosanitary products and the system for authorising genetically modified organisms). Many countries (such as France, Greece and Germany) underlined the importance of direct aid to compensate for this loss in competitiveness. The need to promote the European agri-food model internationally (amongst third countries and international bodies) was highlighted by many countries (France, Ireland, Romania and Hungary). Finally, a big majority of countries highlighted the need to have equivalent standards applied, as well as European level standards, in third countries.
The so-called “liberal” countries (United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden) differentiated themselves somewhat from the orientations taken by their Spanish Presidency because they believe that improved competitiveness comes about primarily from innovation. In brief, they believe that compensation through direct aid for the loss in competitiveness is a too short-termist perspective.
It should also be noted that a group of countries made up of Luxembourg, Hungary and Bulgaria advocated that member states should be allowed to decide whether they want to agree or not to GMO marketing authorisations.
The Spanish Presidency stated that “there is no doubt that new production conditions based on the European agricultural model require significant investment from producers and, often, increased costs”.
International agreements. The Spanish Presidency also considers that “non-commercial issues (animal health and welfare, traceability, animal feed and the use of phytosanitary and veterinary medical products) should be taken into account, by being included in international codes and thus established as requirements for agri-food products from non-EU countries”.
Internally, the document states: “If the European agricultural model responds to society's concerns, society should bear the added cost generated. The cost of all these investments should therefore be clear in the prices paid by consumers”: - “simple labelling for all products, which is easy to implement and which does not imply additional costs”; - exact information on the European agricultural model; - a balance in the production chain forces and agri-food trade which might help consumers acknowledge the efforts made by farmers. The Presidency admits that there are limits in this approach because “price alone is the most important choice factor for the vast majority of our consumers and for most of the agricultural products consumed”. Ultimately, the Spanish Presidency notes that “the latest changes to the direct support schemes (in particular the CAP "health check") have moved in the direction of assigning certain forms of aid to types of operation that focus particularly on satisfying citizens' demands on issues like quality, animal welfare and additional agri-environment benefits”. The Presidency also states that “such an option could give our producers the stability they need in order to continue offering differentiated products and services that the consumer recognises”. (L.C./transl.fl)