The Impact of EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Legislation on
Developing Countries
David
BYRNE
European Commissioner for
Health and Consumer Protection
Meeting with World Bank Executive Directors
Washington, DC
18 March 2004
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very pleased to be here today to address the World
Bank on the very important issue of the impact of EU
SPS measures on developing countries.
A small but important clarification before I launch into
the substance of my address. Please understand “SPS” as short-hand for
legislation in the food and feed areas which impacts on public, animal and
plant health.
I am encouraged that the World Bank is taking an
increasing interest in the issue of SPS. At first glance, it might not fit
well with the issues normally associated with the World Bank. But of
course, it should! I am looking forward, therefore, to your forthcoming
study on “the challenges and opportunities presented by SPS.”
All of the citizens of the world, from the poorest to the
richest, are dependent on food. All of us, without exception, must eat.
But the importance to developing countries is even more pronounced.
Developing countries remain very heavily dependent on
agriculture. Their peoples are much closer to the land and a high
proportion of them earn their living from the land. The cost of food is
also a much greater burden on their incomes.
A great many of developing countries continue to have
problems in ensuring their own food security. And food and food products
continue to be disproportionately important in their trade figures.
For all of these reasons, the World Bank must take SPS
standards very seriously.
There is a huge challenge facing the developing countries,
the least developed in particular, in raising the living standards of
their peoples. A measure of their success, and of your role in assisting
them, will be putting sufficient safe and nutritious food on the tables of
their people.
So, where do I come into all this? As the European
Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, my responsibility is to
European consumers, in ensuring that their
food is safe.
The answer lies in the title of my address: “The impact of
EU SPS Legislation on Developing Countries.” Is this impact good,
assisting their development? Or, is it bad, damaging their development
possibilities?
The starting point is the objective of EU sanitary
legislation. Put at its simplest, it is to ensure a high level of safety
in relation to public, animal and plant health in the EU. The secondary
purpose is to ensure that trade in animal and plant products can take
place in safe conditions.
This needs to be underlined. SPS legislation is not an
obstacle to trade. It is essential to trade! This explains the decision to
create the SPS Agreement in the Uruguay Round Agreement. It reflected the
reality that rules are necessary to facilitate trade in the area of food.
These two objectives, safe food and facilitating trade,
are entirely complementary. Trade between the Member States of the EU in
food products can only take place if there is full confidence that it is
safe. It is the European Commission’s job to help create the conditions
leading to this confidence.
In our case, this requires a clear distinction between
trade and food safety interests. The latter, food safety, cannot be
manipulated to serve trade interests. This explains the clear segregation
of responsibilities within the Commission.
The creation of my Directorate General, with specific
responsibility for food safety, was designed to ensure that decisions
would be taken with an eye to the consumer rather than trade interests.
By-and-large, we have been very successful in this
respect. The EU is a single market for trade in food and food products.
With some relatively minor exceptions, food is traded throughout the EU
under the umbrella of a single body of uniformly implemented legislation.
This is a very significant achievement which should not be
overlooked. The Member States of the EU had to be convinced to agree to
this body of legislation. On sensitive issues of food safety, this was not
an easy task.
A lot of suspicion had to be overcome and the confidence
of Member States had to be won. The Commission is the key player in
ensuring that the system works. We oversee the legislation, adapt and
update it as necessary and ensure that it serves its primary purpose –
protecting public, animal and plant health.
This is a heavy responsibility. If we get it wrong, there
are important consequences. The
BSE crisis in particular taught us a lot of lessons. I was appointed
to Office four-and-a-half years ago with a clear mandate to implement the
lessons learnt from the BSE experience. And I am satisfied that the
reforms I have put in place over this period have fulfilled this mandate.
It is also important to keep in mind how vulnerable we
remain to risks in relation to food safety and animal health. The outbreak
of
foot and mouth disease in 2001 is such an example. The recent
worldwide outbreaks of
avian flu are another.
The potential for avian flu to mutate into new and very
dangerous strains of flu to which humans are very vulnerable is especially
worrying.
These outbreaks serve to remind us of the need to avoid
any complacency. Risks in the area of food safety, both old and new,
continue to have the potential to cause major political and economic
disruption.
The outbreak of
SARS in China last year is a recent example of just how serious this
disruption can be. It acted as an important brake on economic growth
throughout China and the Asia region last year.
One can only imagine how much greater this damage might
have been if the initial fears of the disease’s infectivity had been
realized.
However, without being complacent, I am convinced that we,
the European Union, have made huge progress over the past several years in
getting our food safety systems right.
We have increased the Treaty provisions in relation to
food safety. This in turn has allowed us to put in place a new body of
more powerful and up-to-date legislation. We have also created a
European Food Safety Authority to
provide independent scientific advice on risks associated with food.
In the process, the EU has increasingly acquired a single
voice on food safety issues in the international arena. For example, the
Commission represents the EU in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee
of the WTO. Similarly, we represent the EU in the
CODEX Alimentarius which
sets world standards in relation to food safety.
Where does this leave third countries and developing
countries in particular? I am aware that there is an image that the EU,
along with other developed countries, uses food safety standards for
protectionist ends. It is a view which I suspect finds some sympathy in
the corridors of the World Bank.
I could simply point to the
import figures to refute this
image. The EU is the single biggest food importer in the world. And we
draw our imports from around the globe, from an incredibly diverse range
of countries.
However, I am sure that you will require a more
sophisticated answer than these
figures if you are to be convinced that
our standards do not serve protectionist ends.
We do not impose our standards on other systems of food
production. These are issues for those countries to decide for themselves
although I would argue that our systems, suitably tailored to local
conditions, are good examples to follow.
However, we do insist that conditions relating to imports
should be no more favourable, or less favourable, than apply to domestic
producers. Frankly, I could not legitimately argue otherwise.
I fully accept that the EU sets very high food safety
standards and that these are difficult to meet, in particular for
developing countries. I make no apology for these high standards. Let me
outline why they are necessary.
For the reasons outlined earlier, we have worked hard and
invested hugely in putting in place safe food production systems. Food
must conform to our very high safety standards, irrespective of its
origins. I will not put these systems in jeopardy by taking unacceptable
risks in relation to imports.
These risks are high. The animal disease situation in
large parts of the world continues to be very worrying. Very dangerous
diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, continue to be endemic. The EU
has paid a huge price to eradicate these diseases and to maintain its
disease free status. We will not put this success at risk by accepting
imports, under unsafe conditions.
However, instead of being defensive, let me point to clear
examples of how the EU facilitates imports from developing countries.
We implement the regionalization approach towards imports,
a concept promoted in the SPS agreement in the WTO. In simple terms, we
accept imports from regions of third countries where we are confident that
this is not a risk to our public or animal health status.
This explains why we allow imports of fresh beef from
countries like Brazil, Argentina and South Africa. We accept that there
are regions in these countries where foot and mouth disease is either not
present or is controlled through vaccination.
This contrasts with the approach not only of other
developed countries but of developing countries. You will not be able to
find an Argentinian beef steak here in Washington, for example, as the US
has been much slower to embrace the policy of regionalization than the EU.
This is true also of Japan.
Developing countries themselves are also slow to follow
the concept. So the EU often faces unfair and discriminatory practices
following an outbreak of a disease. Exports from the entire EU are often
blocked even though only an individual Member State or region is affected.
Most of the world remains closed to our beef exports under
the pretext of BSE, even though we have a comprehensive system of
protective measures in place which ensure the safety of our beef.
Our measures are also soundly based on science, even when
this works to our disadvantage. An example is BSE. In the absence of
international classification of the risk status of individual countries,
the Commission carried out its own scientific risk assessments of both
Member States and third countries wishing to export to the EU.
These assessments led to the classification of the
countries concerned. Many of our most important trading partners, like
Brazil, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand are categorised in category I
– the “best” or safest category. We classed all the Member States of the
EU in less favorable categories.
Our import requirements are tailored to these categories
and thus these countries are subject to less rigorous requirements than
Member States. Moreover, they use their favorable EU status to good
advantage on other world commercial markets for beef and beef products.
Again, I challenge you to find similar examples of such
treatment extended by other third countries.
We also try to be proportionate in our responses to food
safety problems. An example is the recent outbreak of high pathogenic
avian flu in Thailand. The Commission, in full conformity with the
relevant international code of the
OIE, imposed a ban on imports.
However, we excluded imports of certain cooked poultry
meat products from this ban because we accept that cooking destroys the
virus. This distinction allowed the EU market to remain open to 40% of
Thai exports, the most high value added component of their trade.
The Thai authorities themselves officially acknowledged
the proportionate response of the Commission. Our policies contrasted with
virtually all other countries which imposed a total ban on all poultry
products.
There are many other examples where we have found
proportionate responses to problems with imports. While our primary
responsibility is to ensure that food is safe, this can be reconciled with
an approach which takes account of the special circumstances and
difficulties faced by developing countries.
The EU is also open and transparent. It can quickly be
established from our website which third countries are authorized to
export to the EU and for which animal products. The import requirements
are also publicly available.
Third countries can apply for authorization following a
clearly defined path. If they can satisfy the Commission that they meet
our requirements, we take the necessary decisions to signal their
compliance with our food safety requirements.
This involves a visit by our
inspectors to establish,
on-the-ground, that these conditions are met. These
reports, published on
our website, provide clear and transparent information on the shortcomings
and strengths of the sanitary conditions in the countries concerned.
Today, in Brussels, the Commission will submit a proposal
to Member States to include both Romania and Zimbabwe in the list of third
countries authorized to export fishery products to the EU under the most
flexible conditions. This is an everyday example of how our system
requirements can be met if the commitment exists.
We also insist that our conditions respect our
international obligations. All proposed measures with a potential trade
impact are notified to the WTO, to allow our trading partners to comment
on their compatibility with the relevant international norms.
We take their comments seriously and if necessary amend
the proposals in question or postpone their entry into force. Admittedly,
comments are overwhelmingly from the developed countries. This is a point
I will return to shortly.
We also participate fully in the key international
standard setting bodies, like the CODEX, the OIE and the
IPPC. I was
especially encouraged that the European Community was accepted as a full
Member of the CODEX in July last year.
Developing countries in particular supported our
membership by an overwhelming majority in the formal, contested, vote on
membership.
I take this as a signal that they see our membership as constructive in
the development of international standards in the food area.
More generally, the EU and its Member States are the
largest development donors in the world both in absolute and relative
terms. We are committed to the achievement of a fairer, more equitable and
more prosperous world.
In the area of
food safety, my Commission colleagues are
financing significant horizontal projects in the area of fisheries,
pesticides and animal health targeted at the African, Caribbean and
Pacific countries in particular.
These are in addition to the multitude of SPS related
projects being funded under our aid programmes for individual countries.
We are the first port of call for any developing country
looking for assistance to upgrade its SPS systems.
We are assisting these countries to develop their
food safety systems better, primarily to improve their own food security but also
in the hope that they will in time develop the capacity to export their
food products to the EU.
While I believe that the protectionist image of the EU in
relation to food safety is untrue, I do accept that more should be done to
assist developing countries meet our standards.
Last week, the
European Parliament voted its approval of a
major new regulation on food and feed controls. This
regulation will enter
into force on 1 January 2006 and will radically alter the current control
systems designed to ensure that food is safe.
It will also have major implications for developing
countries. With a view to assisting them to meet the challenge of the new
regulation, it includes a number of important provisions including
training and “twinning” projects where Member State experts work closely
with a designated developing country.
There is also provision for allowing for differential
treatment of developing countries to reflect the composition of their
exports to the EU. For example, if their exports are of a particular
commodity or product, their control measures could be tailored
accordingly.
Moreover, to ensure that there are no surprises, my
development colleagues have commissioned a major study on the potential
impact of the regulation. This study will be available by the end of this
year, allowing a further year for the Commission services and their
developing country counterparts to adapt to the new regulation.
I hope that this brief outline will help convince you that
the image of protectionist EU SPS standards is far from being true.
I would now like to turn to the role of the World Bank in
relation to food safety. I remarked earlier that food safety is not a
concept normally associated in people’s minds with this institution. I
genuinely hope this will change.
Leaving aside the EU’s trade policy in agriculture, safe
food must be a priority for developing countries. Their consumers deserve
safe food. It is essential both in the interests of food security and
public health. They cannot afford the high costs of unsafe food. The World
Bank must recognize this in its own policies.
It would be a mistake to focus only on safe food in the
context of strengthening the export capacity of developing countries. That
must come second to the primary objective of strengthening their
protective systems for their own consumers. I would hope that trade would
follow rather than lead this process.
We must all keep in mind the dangerous dilemma of food
shortages in certain developing countries co-existing with exports of high
value-added luxury foods to Western consumers. This might be
comprehensible from a trade perspective, but is hard to explain to civil
society.
Nonetheless, the reality is that it will often be hard, in
the short term at least, to move to a food safety system which meets the
developed world requirements. China, in its efforts to meet concerns
regarding its exports to the EU has adopted a specific “export oriented
scheme” geared specifically to the export sector.
I would suggest therefore that capacity building efforts
should focus on the domestic sector.
This is not to argue that the World Bank should ignore the
international arena in relation to food safety. There is room for
improvement in this area also and we all have a role to play.
There is a valid expectation that the
Doha Development
Round will lead to further trade liberalization, including in agriculture.
Franz Fischler recently spoke to you on the reform of the
Common
Agriculture Policy and I hope that you appreciate fully the scale of the
changes currently underway.
These changes are under-estimated by our trading partners.
The EU has not received the recognition it deserves for its efforts to
make its agriculture production systems more compatible with its
international trading obligations.
However, the focus should not only be on tariffs and
quotas in the Doha negotiations. Unless there is a serious effort to strengthen the capacity of developing countries
also to meet the food safety
standards of the developed world, the opportunities presented by trade
liberalization in the food area may prove illusionary.
I am speaking in particular of the least developed
countries. They already enjoy virtual free access to EU markets but the
results have been disappointing. Their more developed partners, like
Brazil and Thailand, on the other hand are already well equipped to meet
these standards.
A number of initiatives come to mind. The capacity of the
developing countries to participate in the WTO/SPS must be strengthened.
This is recognized by the WTO itself. I believe that they deserve our
support in making more active participation a reality rather than an
aspiration.
This in turn calls for full support for the “Standards and
Trade Development Facility” established under the auspices of the WTO and
bringing together key partner organizations like the FAO, OIE, WHO and the
World Bank.
I acknowledge that the World Bank has provided the seed
capital to launch this initiative. Its objective in helping developing
countries participate more fully in setting and making use of
international SPS standards is laudable. A working group meeting took
place in Washington last week and I hope that its results will be shared
with the Commission.
The developing countries are currently under-represented
in the key standard setting bodies, such as the OIE, the CODEX and the
IPPC. It is not only a question of physical presence but of participation.
There should be a greater focus on regional groupings. The EU already
effectively organizes itself on this basis. Other regions could follow our
example, either on a formal or informal basis.
There also needs to be greater coordination between the
developed countries on food safety issues. A major focus of my visit to
Washington is to encourage better cooperation between the EU and the US.
We both have highly efficient and very safe systems of
food production. Yet, we find ourselves all too often on different sides
of the table when it comes to applying food safety standards.
This has important implications for the developing world
who risk being caught in the cross-fire between the world’s two largest
trading blocs. If we could work together better, I am convinced it would
serve also the interests of our less developed trading partners.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have taken up a lot of your time.
I now look forward to your comments of how you view the role of SPS
standards, especially in the EU, in relation to the developing world.
In due course I also look forward to the study of the
World Bank on SPS measures. I hope that it will look constructively and
imaginatively at the issues involved and strengthen our understanding of
the role of these standards in international trade.
Thank you for your attention.
