CFG
14/04 rev. 1
In July, the world trade
talks resumed after delays due to agriculture and services. Some of
the most contentious agricultural issues are the phasing out of export
refunds, their definition (e.g. abuse of food aid), what can be included
in the so-called 'green box' (i.e. allowed subsidies) and the implications
of multi-functionality (food security, provision of environmental
foods, animal welfare, food safety and standards).
According to the OECD, the recent reforms of the Common Agricultural
Policy have not significantly cut overall support to farmers but will
reduce trade distortion and lead to more extensive agriculture. OECD
economists propose full de-coupling as the most efficient way of helping
farm incomes and the EU has moved towards this. Farmers benefited
from prices 34% above the world market level from 2001-2003 compared
to 72% in 1986-88 according to their analysis. The cost imposed on
consumers has fallen from 40% in 1986 - 88 to 28% in 2001-03.
Foodaware favours reduction in EU import tariffs on agricultural products
and the elimination of all kinds of export subsidies. Besides benefiting
developing countries, this would reduce prices to consumers and particularly
help low-income families who pay out a high proportion of their income
on food. It has been argued that there is no need to reduce the burden
on sugar and butter prices in view of unhealthy diets. However, high
calorie products are a staple for low-income consumers and, once they
have bought filling foods, they can then think about buying fruit
and vegetables.
Despite reforms to the fruit and vegetable regime, scope remains for
reforms to reduce prices. For example, at their December meeting,
the Euro-med ministers agreed that a precise road map, to achieve
a higher degree of progressive reciprocal liberalisation of trade
in agriculture, should be drawn up in 2004. It would be very much
in the interests of UK consumers to have better access to Mediterranean
products, such as olive oil.
Farm subsidies defined as within the green box are the only ones allowed
to be continued long term. The green box should be widely defined
to include rural development, and conservation, access to the countryside,
wildlife protection, afforestation, animal welfare and organic production.
Transfer of funding from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 provides an opportunity
to foster organic production in the new member states including for
export.
Foodaware does not accept that the green box should be the only route
for protecting environmental standards, however. The current preferred
criterion for differentiation in the WTO/Codex context takes insufficient
account of environmental factors, concentrating on what products are
- not on how products are made. Yet EU consumers and farmers should
be entitled to choose whether or not to accept genetically modified
products, for example. WTO rules should be amended clearly to legalise
schemes based on non-product related production and processing methods
(gm, eco and fairtrade).
Countries are allowed to take action for health reasons, but factors
that affect consumer preference, including ethical and religious concerns,
desire to promote more sustainable food production practices, and
many other things that consumers value, may affect consumer health
only indirectly, if at all. However, Codex does allow for 'other factors'
including 'promoting fair practices in food trade' and such consumer
preferences should be included in this definition. This issue will
become more prominent as WTO negotiations proceed to the detail.
This WTO Round rightly sets out to pay special attention to the needs
of developing countries. They can have problems understanding and
complying with EU standards. The answer is not to lower our hard-won
standards, but (on the model of the official food and feed regulation)
to provide help to developing countries to raise theirs. The opportunities
for developing country exports of organic food, for example, should
be maximised.
The 2001 Doha ministerial declaration included a mandate for the elimination
and reduction of barriers to environmental goods and services. Again,
this applies to goods that are themselves environment friendly (pollution
abatement equipment and services). Foodaware believes that the mandate
should be extended to production based environmental goods such as
organic produce.
Foodaware also believes that understanding of the precautionary principle
needs to be developed at international level in order to protect food
safety where doubt exists. To quote the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue,
'the plain fact is that science can tell us what the risks are, but
deciding how much risk is acceptable and how to manage risks are social
choices, and require a participatory political process for balancing
values - not merely "science."
|
