login
login
Image header Agence Europe
Europe Daily Bulletin No. 8256
Contents Publication in full By article 14 / 43
GENERAL NEWS / (eu) eu/agriculture council

No agreement on proposal to amend cereal and rice scheme at WTO

Brussels, 16/07/2002 (Agence Europe) - Since the EU Member States' agricultural ministers on Monday were unable to reach agreement by qualified majority over amending the EU cereal and rice import scheme at the WTO, the Danish Presidency has decided to send the issue to be examined by the 133 Committee and the Special Agriculture Committee.

Several delegations, including France, Austria, the Netherlands and Finland (with nuances), called for a mandate to be given to the Commission to open negations with third countries at the WTO on setting import quotas (rather than levying duties) as long as the Commission regularly reports to the Council on the state of negotiations. Sweden, Denmark and the UK did not support the Commission's draft recommendation as they considered the current situation on the world cereal market to be exceptional due to the high yields in Ukraine and Russia and because such negotiations could restrict market access for imports from less developed countries. Spain is also understood to have come out against the idea, for different reasons. Other delegations, like Germany, pointed out the lengthy procedure involved in the procedure and the need to reach a fast, bilateral agreement with interested third countries (the Ukraine and Russia). Italy expressed reservations about the scope of the mandate, which also applies to rice.

France's views have changed since the last round of discussions at the Special Agriculture Committee, because Commissioner Fischler dismissed the implementation of Odessa quotations for calculating customs duties, and also given the urgency of finding a solution to problems facing this country in particular (see Europe of 10 July, p.9). Fischler said the negotiating period would not be as long as some had claimed (90 days) and called on Member States to quickly give him a mandate in order to avoid having to take the recent marketing year (2001/2002) into account (which would be unfavourable for the EU) when calculating compensation to be paid to third countries, using instead 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001.

Contents

A LOOK BEHIND THE NEWS
THE DAY IN POLITICS
GENERAL NEWS
ECONOMIC INTERPENETRATION
SUPPLEMENT