Brussels, 07/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - A majority of representatives of Member States, meeting within the Special Agricultural Committee (SAC) on Monday, asked the European Commission to be firm with Australia in bilateral negotiations for the conclusion of an agreement between the two parties on wine and spirits. These countries denounced Australia's desire to renegotiate the terms of the "wine and spirits" compromise that was secured between the EU and Australia at the cost of large EU concessions. They urged the Commission to base itself on the agreement on wine concluded between the Community and Chile, which was welcomed as a model of its type.
Talks were on three important aspects of the agreement:
Traditional mentions: producer Member States accused the Australians of placing the compromise secured back into question so as to ensure the protection of names such as "Ruby" or "Tawny" (Porto). They thus call on the Commission not to give way on what had already been secured.
Wine-making practices: Australia wants to be able to use an ions procedure (échange d'ions) as chemical processing procedure for wine, whereas Member States prefer to wait for the stance that the International Wines Office will take on this method. So as to give wine a wooden flavour, the Australians also want to be able to incorporate wood shavings. The EU's wine producing countries consider that this technique has as effect of causing unfair competition, as this practice is cheaper than the traditional method of conservation in oak vats.
Geographic indications: the problems still concern the use, by Australian operators, or generic or semi-generic names protected at Community level, like "Porto" or "Sherry". For some Member States, the time has passed for negotiating a "phasing out" for using these names by the Australians. According to them, a the Commission must conclude these negotiations as soon as possible and set a date, even a distant one, from which the use of these names will no longer be allowed. Only four Member States (United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark), opt for a more flexible negotiating strategy.
Discussions on this topic are continuing within the Council's 133 Committee.