FRENCH SEEK TO INCORPORATE SOCIETAL PREFERENCES INTO EU

UNCLAS PARIS 001240 SIPDIS BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY; USDA/OS/SCHAFER/CONNER; USDA/FAS FOR OA/YOST/JACKSON/ROSADO; OCRA/CURTIS/ALEXANDER; ONA/RIEMENSCHNEIDER/YOUNG; OFSO/LEE/YOUNG; EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE REF: PARIS 001085 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR ETRD PGOV WTRO PINR FR SUBJECT: FRENCH SEEK TO INCORPORATE SOCIETAL PREFERENCES INTO EU FOOD REGIME ¶1. Summary: In a memorandum submitted to the European Council on June 23, France moved forward with its plans to require that imported products conform to standards for EU production. The stated goal is to offset higher costs of European producers due to EU "societal" standards for food production. If approved, this change could result in the imposition of tariff and/or non-tariff barriers on agricultural imports for non-science, health or safety (and likely non-WTO consistent) reasons. The GOF memo confirms that France is poised to push harder on the European preference principle (reftel) during its Presidency. End Summary ¶2. In an effort to ensure that EU production requirements do not place European producers at an economic disadvantage to third country exporters, France has put forward a three part proposal for food, livestock and plant imports. First, import controls would be strengthened at all EU points of entry to ensure the safety and compliance of imported products with EU regulations. Comment: France has often complained that border inspections and controls are too lax in some Member States, allowing third country imports to escape strict EU regulations. ¶3. Second, there would be a greater emphasis and application of SPS risk analysis to manage risk factors associated with imports. The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) would play a more important role in such scientific assessments of risks to human, animal and plant health posed by goods imported to the European Union. Equivalent protection systems in third countries would be considered, but the EU would be more vigilant in their assessment of equivalency status. EU inspections, particularly in the plant sector, would be increased and penalties for failure to comply would be more stringent. ¶4. Third, to eliminate distortion in levels of production costs between EU and third-country producers, imports would have to comply with EU production. For example, incorporating societal choices, such as animal welfare and traceability requirements, into agricultural production and food standards raises the costs of production for EU producers, and these types of requirements would also have to be met by imported products. France is looking to have these types of societal choices integrated more widely into international trading standards to keep their producers competitive by raising the costs of third country trading partners. ¶5. Comment: This initiative has become Agriculture Minister Barnier's foremost priority for the French EU Presidency and has the support of President Sarkozy. The European Preference (EP) principle (i.e. the principle that EU products should receive preferential treatment compared to imported goods, or at least, not be put at a disadvantage) illustrated by this memorandum is also a cornerstone of France's objectives for the Common Agricultural Policy reform of 2013 (reftel). The EP principle appears to be gaining support among EU Agriculture Ministers (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Poland, Romania and Slovenia),but whether other elements of EU government will support such a proposal, which clearly challenges (and likely contravenes) current WTO protocols, remains to be seen. End Comment. STAPLETON