Newsletter from the European Commission- DG Trade- G2- SPS & Biotechnology Team

Transcription

1 4 th Edition September 2004 Newsletter from the European Commission- DG Trade- G2- SPS & Biotechnology Team Dear reader, Summer is a time for travel, to see new things, new people, and new customs. It is said that travel broadens the mind! Well, so the story goes! It seems obvious. It is easy to throw stones at people a long way off, but once you get to know them and understand how they think and why they do things a certain way, your perspective tends to become more tolerant of differences, more ready to accept other ways of doing things. In the SPS sector, this is what is known as equivalence. In essence, this means that there can be more than one way to achieve a particular result, but each is equally valid. So if one country does things differently from the EU, this does not mean that it cannot export to the EU or vica versa. Exports can be possible if the exporter s system meets its trading partner s level of protection. The system of recognition of equivalence is a cornerstone of the SPS Agreement. However, this is not always easy to do in practice. Can we really tell if a country s measure gives equivalent guarantees? Is there an objective way of measuring level of protection? Unfortunately, it is not always the case. However, in the EU, the introduction of the food and feed control Regulation signals a movement towards a more result based system where the focus is on the primary objective, i.e. safe food, rather than on the steps necessary to achieve that objective. This involves an acceptance that control systems can achieve this objective without necessarily following identical procedures or requirements. The new Regulation is therefore more results-based, concentrating on hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP). This approach is extended also towards imports from Third Countries. It should make it easier for those exporters willing to invest in in-process controls, although following different approaches and procedures. In future editions we will aim to help you to understand how the control Regulation will operate and we hope that, together with SANCO, we can facilitate the transition to the new system for exporting countries. Comings and goings The bad news Marc Cronin has left us. A founder member of the TRADE SPS team, his four years as a national expert have come to an end. Marc was the first to be recruited to meet the growing importance of SPS measures as barriers to trade, and played a significant role in the evolution of the team to its present strength. Those who know him will join me in thanking him for his very important contributions, and wishing him success in his new post in Ireland. Maybe we will entice him back to Brussels one day. The good news firstly, Marc will be replaced, hopefully before too long. Secondly, we have a new secretary, Caroline Viviani. She joined us on 1 September, and we know she will add new dimensions to our work. She has experience with an events organiser company, and we will make full use of her skills in this area as well as for secretarial tasks. Welcome, Caroline. Brian Marchant 1

2 Current Affairs SPS Export Database LIVE Mid September the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Export Database went public and is now available for you to consult. Since the beginning of 2004 DG TRADE has been working on the ability of the Commission to deal with problems for EU exports of animal and plant products covered by the SPS Agreement. A key element of this is the establishment of a database of SPS export problems. This database is linked to the existing market access database already managed by DG TRADE. It is primarily designed to help TRADE identify SPS export problems with any third country, with a view to instigating appropriate action to have them lifted. It draws on information provided by the EU agri-food industry, Member States, EC Delegations in Third Countries, other DGs within the Commission and notifications made by Third Countries via the official SPS notification system. The information is entered into the database, but is not made public until it has been validated by the Member State(s) concerned. The task of keeping this up to date is considerable, and, therefore, demanding of resources, but cannot be of value unless it reflects the actual situation at all times. Progress in the development of a problem or dispute is recorded, so that the current state of play is readily identifiable. Response from all parties so far has been very positive. Approximately 350 export problems were identified initially, but these have been consolidated by linking issues affecting several Member States together, and there are at present approximately 120 entries. Relevant information on Sanitary and Phytosanitary export problems experienced by EU exporters and EU Member States should be sent to DG Trade G2. We would be pleased to have input from Competent Authorities in EU Member State (different Ministries of Agriculture, Public or Animal health, Trade or Economic Affairs), from Private Organisations and Producer Associations). I would like to point out how important the exchange of information is so that the Commission can push actively for resolutions on these SPS export problems on every appropriate occasion, which might include WTO SPS committee meetings. Secondly it is important that the information is updated when appropriate. If you would like to inform the Commission about an existing SPS export problem, or if your Ministry/Organisation have already submitted relevant information to the Commission services which need to be up-dated, please use the form you find on the website. Further background information can be attached if you wish. ( (This should contain as much detailed information as possible to allow a full assessment of the case). 2

3 Russia-EU relations: Trade in animal products will continue after 1 October A major loss in trade in animal products to Russia has been avoided by agreeing on the use of uniform veterinary trade certificates, allowing EU exports of live animals and animal products to continue from 1 October without disruption. Russia blocked all such exports on 1 June but had suspended this ban until 1 October to allow further discussions to take place. Russia will implement a set of uniform veterinary certificates to be used by all EU Member States exporting to Russia. Particular attention has been paid to certifying products originating in one Member State and processed in another. Russia has also agreed to a further three-month transitional period during which further details can be worked out. In addition, Russia has accepted the principle of regionalisation, so that an animal disease outbreak in a part of a Member State will not block exports from the whole of that country nor from the rest of the EU. Although regionalisation is already applied in some of the Russian import conditions, the full implementation of this principle should take place later in the context of a wider arrangement. Overall these are positive developments which introduce stability and provide a platform to make further progress. While uniform certification is to be introduced for exports from all EU countries, each exporting Member State will continue to sign the veterinary certificates used for exports from its territory. When the products are sourced from different Member States, the exporting Member State will base its certification on a system of underlying pre- export certification. Technical meetings continue to work out details of the agreed memorandum. Background Within the EU internal market, trade in live animals and animal products flows easily. When there is an animal disease outbreak in one Member State, the EU acts immediately to limit the spread of the disease. The principle of regionalisation is applied: stopping the movements from the affected region. Russia was concerned that products affected by a disease outbreak in one Member State could move freely within the internal market and be exported through another Member State. This meant that if there would be an outbreak of for example African Swine Fever on Sardinia, Russia could refuse to import pork from any EU country. Indeed this was the position in the past. Russia has now accepted the principle of regionalisation so that such trade blockages can be limited to the affected regions within the EU. This acceptance is on the basis that the EU has also agreed to set up a system involving a chain of official pre-export certification for products which pass through more than one Member State. SPS problems solved Thanks to the efforts made by the Competent Authorities of the Member States and Third Countries, Delegations, Commissions Services and Private Industry the following SPS export problems have been solved so far this year: 1. Chile- ban on pork meat and pork meat products due to Classical Swine Fever (Chile lifted its ban for SPS in November 2003 after the first meeting of the EU- Chile Joint Management Committee) 2. China- Bovine and Pork Meat due to Footh and Mouth disease 3. New- Zealand- Beef and beef products due to BSE 4. Peru- ban on poultry and poultry products due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 5. Australia- Truss Tomatoes due to Import Licence 6. United States- Meat and edible meat products due to listing of Establishments 7. Philippines- Beef and beef products due to BSE 8. Japan- Lifting of ban on Spain Clementine and Salustiana oranges and on Belgian tomato To be continued 3

4 EU-MERCOSUR technical discussions (16-17 September 2004) - SPS chapter Technical discussions on the SPS chapter took place during September 2004 in Brussels within the framework of the EU-Mercosur Agreement. Technical discussions are taking place with the objective to provide a less official environment for technical discussions and let negotiations progress as much as possible before the next official round. This official round was supposed to take place during the week of 20 September 2004 but has been postponed till October 2004 and will take place in Brasilia. Regional integration within Mercosur countries continues to be a key element for the negotiations in the SPS chapter. Uruguay bans EU exports of pork meat products The Commission received on 21 September 2004 official confirmation from the Uruguayan Competent Authorities on a ban applied to pork meat and pork meat products due to animal health reasons: Swine Vesicular Disease (SVD) and possibly Classical Swine Fever (CSF). The impact on trade is relevant in particular for some Member States (ES and IT). The ban applies to maturated or cured pork meat products (this definition may apply to delicatessen products like Iberian lomo, a Serrano ham, Parma ham and some other hams of French origin). Uruguay based this ban on the presence of SVD in some regions of Portugal and decided to extend the ban to Spain, which is free of SVD. In the case of Italy, it seems that the basis for the ban could be the presence of SVD and CSF. The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) allows the export of pork meat products from SVD affected countries under some guarantees. The Commission is trying to resolve this SPS export problem via bilateral negotiations with the Uruguayan authorities and providing technical support to the EU Delegation in Montevideo. An on-the-spot inspection mission has been requested by the Uruguayan authorities as a pre-condition before the ban could be lifted. Import restrictions on EU exports of bovine semen to Brazil Brazil decided to request additional import requirements for EU exports of bovine semen coming from some EU Member States due to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or also named mad cow disease ). The measure may have a trade impact on some EU Member States such as UK. International standard organisation (OIE) clearly states that regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country, Veterinary administrations should authorise without restrictions the import or transit through their territory of bovine semen. Exports of this type of product are considered to be safe from the animal health point of view. Argentina continues to ban EU exports of pork meat and pork meat products Argentina still fails to recognise the disease free-status for Classical Swine Fever of some EU Member States. EU Member States criticise Argentinean authorities for the long process of recognition of freedom for diseases which has not been present in some EU Member States for many years. This SPS export problem was discussed bilaterally with the Argentinean authorities at the last SPS Committee in Geneva (June 2004). 4

5 EU-Chile Joint Management Committee (JMC) Next EU-Chile JMC will take place on the week of 11 October 2004 in Santiago. The Commission will have the change to discuss existing SPS export problems experienced by EU exporters. The Commission has asked the Member States to provide agenda points, including export problems, for this JMC. The Philippines allows imports of beef from certain Member States The Philippines published Memorandum Order No 20 of 2004 on 10 July 2004 which allows importation of beef from the Netherlands under certain conditions. We have targeted the Philippines to discuss the ban on beef due to BSE because the Philippines accepted US and Canadian beef very soon after its short ban introduced at the end of This result has been obtained by co-operation between the Member State involved, Commission services and the Philippines Delegation to the WTO in Geneva. A series of contacts between the Netherlands and the Philippines including an inspection mission to NL in May 2004 have taken place. The Commission services have raised this issue with the Philippines via the EU delegation in Manila and via bilateral negotiations with the Philippines Competent Authority at the last two SPS Committees in Geneva (March and June 2004). At these meetings the Commission based its argumentation on Article 2 Paragraph 3 of the SPS Agreement (do not discriminate between members). At that moment the Philippines were studying the possibility to allow imports of beef from Canada and the USA while still banning EU imports. As a result the Philippines has indicated that the ban could be lifted on a country-by-country basis and that the ban could also be lifted for several other MSs who are deemed as low incidence ( for all those countries that have two or fewer cases of BSE.) Interested Member States should apply formally to the Philippines government. The Commission whilst welcoming the amended Philippines rules (which might encourage other Third Countries to move in this direction) has asked for a scientific explanation of why the conditions for imports from the Netherlands are different for those for the US and Canada. Please keep us informed of any Third Countries which are considering lifting BSE restrictions on certain Member States or have allowed in US and/ or Canadian beef. Technical assistance to China TRADE G2 sent two experts on residues to a laboratory in Beijing in August to provide expert on the spot advice on laboratory testing procedures. Another 2 experts are scheduled to visit a laboratory in Nanjing in October. 5

6 Residue Training Due to the significant number of residue-related problems associated with imports into the EU DG TRADE has taken the initiative to arrange a two week residue training course for experts from Developing Countries. The training will be given by the Ecole Nationale Veterinaire in Nantes, France from 22 November 3 rd December The number of participants will be 20. The selection of the countries invited has been made after consultation with DG Sanco, FVO reports and other sources. The aim of the course is to provide technical training to experts from Developing Countries in the field of residue analysis to improve their knowledge of the EC legislation in this area and the performance of analytical methods within the laboratory. Further information on the course can be located on the SARAF website at: Trade SPS Export Policy Seminar March 2005 Changed circumstances (more demanding food safety legislation, increasing use of SPS measures as trade barriers, difficulties experienced by Member States to reopen export markets, pressure from Russia and China and others for EU export certificates, rather than certificates from each individual Member State) indicate the need to start a broader discussion on the best way for the Commission to assist in removing Third Country SPS barriers to EU exports. Competence for exports lies largely with the Member States. However, there is increasing demand from MS for the Commission to act. In order to have a good overall picture of the support for increased Commission activity in this area, we will try to identify the position of the stakeholders involved, i.e., industry, Member States and Members of the EP, especially the Trade commission. A key question could be whether parties are willing to evolve towards a common SPS export trade policy? We consider a seminar to be the most appropriate tool to open the debate. A one day seminar organised by DG Trade G2 is foreseen in March 2005 and will be held in Brussels. In the near future we will provide detailed information on the program and the possibilities to attend. First results on the impact of the new Food and Feed Controls Regulation on ACP countries The COLEACP held a workshop on 15 September to present and discuss the findings of the first phase report looking at the impact on the ACPs of the OFFC, which will enter into force on 1 January The workshop also discussed the ToRs for the second and final phase which will present recommendations for what action needs to be taken (due by spring next year). From the ACP point of view, the final regulation seems less stringent than earlier drafts which had caused some concern. Commission services (DG SANCO) stated that this new Regulation does not contain any new food safety standards that trading partners have to comply with and that the new Regulation is a management tool which is designed to ensure compliance with food safety standards already covered by existing and future EC legislation. Whereas the existing legislation specifies which food safety requirements must be met, the OFFC deals with how to ensure that these requirements are in fact met through official feed and food controls and inspections. According to the report, the principal impact of the OFFC will be in the non-animal sector and in particular the fruit and vegetable sector. We must bear in 6

7 mind that 23 ACPs currently export fruit and vegetables to the EU of which 15 countries account for 95%. Most exporters in the animal sector (including the fish sector) already satisfy a level of control requirements similar to those outlined in the new Regulation. But food safety in the non-animal sector has traditionally been in the hands of private sector operators. The new regulation will require the public and private sector operators to adopt new procedures to produce the necessary documentation and guarantees of compliance with EC food safety requirements. The Regulation contains several provisions for technical assistance and special and differential treatment, including a phased introduction of specific requirements. The Commission will develop guidelines next year which will give more details about the exact requirements that developing countries must meet. Other News Plant health and world trade: EU signs up to new international rules The Agriculture Council has approved a revision of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to strengthen its role in setting international standards. Council also decided that the European Union should become a party to the IPPC in its own right, alongside the 25 EU Member States. Both decisions recognise the growing importance of the IPPC in the international trading system. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) recognises the right of WTO members to impose restrictions on imports if these are needed to protect their agriculture from plant diseases or pests. This right is set out in the WTO s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS Agreement), which also calls on the IPPC to provide international standards to help ensure WTO members develop a harmonised approach and do not use such measures as unjustified barriers to trade. The revised Convention formalises the IPPC s Secretariat and establishes a governing body, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, for the setting of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. These will be recognised under the SPS Agreement. The standard setting process in the IPPC emphasises participation, consultation and technical competence. The new rules explicitly foresee the participation of bodies such as the EU. More: e=en&guilanguage=en Disclaimer: this newsletter presents a summary of recent SPS news. However, for official interpretations or explanations, especially of legislative provisions, only the relevant Community legal texts are valid and any enquiries should be directed to the Commission services. To subscribe/ unsubscribe send a E- mail with in the title Subscribe/ Unsubscribe Trade SPS Newsletter to TRADE SPS EXPORT-PROBLEMS@cec.eu.int 7