Brussels, 28/04/2005 (Agence Europe) - At Tuesday's Agriculture-Fisheries Council in Luxembourg, several Member States called on the European Commission to take in hand trade negotiations on the calculation of customs duty for agricultural products (conversion of specific duties into ad valorem equivalents). The WTO agricultural negotiators went their separate ways on 19 April after a week of negotiations in Geneva, over a “misunderstanding” which blocked them from arriving at a compromise on the conversion into percentage terms (ad valorem) of customs duties currently expressed in absolute values (for example, in euros per tonne).
This subject was raised under “any other business” by request of France, which wanted the Commission to return to a more transparent (with regular reports in writing, a tradition which seems to have got lost) and firmer negotiating method. France received the support of many Member States: Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Hungary and Poland. The UK and Swedish delegations reiterated the importance they attach to concluding an agreement on the Doha Round at the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005.
“The Commission must take note of France's concerns on how negotiations on tariff reductions are being conducted”, Nicolas Forissier, Secretary of State for Agriculture, Food, Fishing and Rural Affairs, explained to the press. “We need more transparency on the part of the Commission, and I asked it to give us a very precise run-down on how negotiations are proceeding”, added Mr Forissier, who recommended that the EU also negotiate within the G10 (Switzerland, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan, Bulgaria, Iceland, Norway, Israel, Liechtenstein and Mauritius), not just the G5 (EU, US, Brazil, India, Australia). France also criticised the Commission for having made too many unilateral concessions, and Mr Forissier called for “negotiations to be carried out globally, without chopping up subject after subject” (developments in tariff bands, list of sensitive products, sums to be set).
In response to these concerns, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel, stressed that the breakdown in technical negotiations in Geneva was by no means the fault of the Commission, but that it was largely down to a difference in interpretation between the participants on the calculations bases for tariff formulae. Also raised at the Council under “any other business” were:
Live cattle; Denmark, supported by Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Luxembourg, said that only meat, and not live cattle, should be exported, and that the Union should stop all subsidies for exports to third countries of cattle destined for slaughter (EUROPE 8930). The French, Irish, Spanish, Hungarian, Czech and Polish delegations opposed this, stressing that Community regulation was enough and that phasing refunds out would cause exporting Member States to lose their market share to third countries without resolving animal welfare issues. The Commission pointed out that its services were working on boosting the conditions for export refunds to be granted.
Egg market: The Belgian delegation raised the alarming situation in the eggs sector (19% drop in prices in the EU and 32% in Belgium). Ms Fischer Boel pointed out that the egg market was currently in a situation of overproduction and that the rise in egg prices in 2003 (140 EUR/100 kilos) could be explained by the reduction in stocks after outbreaks of bird 'flu in the Netherlands and Belgium and the consequent slaughter of several million hens. The only direct support instrument provided by the 1975 regulation is the payment of export refunds. However, the Commission pointed out that the level of the refund had been raised by over 40% last February and that the sum total of EU refunds in this sector was approaching the ceiling set by the WTO. The Commission anticipates an improvement in the market situation.
Apiculture: Hungary and France, supported by 14 other countries, spoke of problems in European bee-keeping. These countries contend that current legislation on honey quality favours imports of poor-quality honey, to the detriment of European production. Furthermore, this unfavourable situation could, they feel, have negative repercussions on arable crops, due to low bee pollination. These delegations underline the need to modify the 2001 directive on EU honey; -provide clear and precise information on the origin; -and stop the sales of substandard products. The Commission said that the drop in honey prices observed in Hungary was due mainly to the lifting of restrictions on imports of honey from China, which were imposed in 2004.