pdf 76kb - food-MAC

Effects on third world trade
The Presidency has raised another important question in asking whether developing
countries might not be disadvantaged by rising quality standards and the increasing
demands made by purchasers.
While it is true that in the Doha Development Round we have had more success
than ever before in binding the developing countries into a mutually beneficial, freer
trade environment, we cannot avoid the fact that, as world agriculture becomes
more competitive, quality standards and product differentiation are more and more a
reflection of consumer demand. That is part and parcel of the market-orientated
approach and the Presidency is right to raise the question of what its implications
are for development policy in general. If we accept that there is a sense in which
the customer is always right, and so the demands of purchasers must be met, then
we must also accept that assistance to developing countries will need to address
this issue.
Subsidiarity
We are all well aware that our administrations are fully involved at present with the
setting in place of the 2003 CAP and associated sector reforms. The Commission’s
aim is based on the respect of the principles of the Council decision through
common rules, which respect the specificity of each Member State’s agriculture.
Nor should we forget that a crucial point of the 2003 CAP reform has been the
simplification it will bring. So the Commission is on its guard to ensure that
unnecessary complication is avoided in order to attain the more important political
goal of a better and more clearly defined set of standards for EU agriculture.
Thus the basic plan for the issues of subsidiarity in decision-making, and the goals
of limiting the administrative burden and simplifying the regulatory environment,
have been laid out. In terms of on-the-ground implementation, Member State
authorities will retain the basic duties assigned to them.
Concluding Remarks
The fact that issues concerning food quality should now have come to the fore
should not surprise us. Much of the public debate surrounding the 2003 CAP reform
concerned the impact on farming and the countryside. However, given the
developments in our society, and in particular its food and food purchasing habits,
the impacts of CAP reform on the food industry are equally important. The
Presidency paper raises interesting questions as to how agricultural policy and its
management should react to the demands of the food industry and consumers. We
shall all need to devote our attention to finding the best possible answers.
4