WRITTEN QUESTION E-3185/00 by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implications of Regulation 2092/91 for imports of organic produce from developing countries.
Date: 2000-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: developing countries, export, organic product, originating product, producer organisation, production control, quality label

C 163 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

the trend to livestock
For the reasons explained in the draft
intensification is already perceptible, particularly in developing countries where the growth in demand is
strongest. In some regions, intensification of livestock production has translated into development of peri-
urban industrial schemes (mostly in Asia and Latin America), which leads to new constraints on the
environment, human health, social development and also animal welfare.

livestock sub-sectoral strategy paper,

As indicated in the draft paper, the development aid of the Community aims at helping poor small scale
farmers and therefore does not support
industrial animal
production in developing countries. In the livestock sub-sector, Community aid will be directed towards
poor rural communities which draw an important part of their income from livestock farming.

financially the creation or promotion of

Therefore the Commission confirms that it will not encourage in developing countries the use of systems
which are being phased out by law in the Community, for example battery cages for egg-laying hens and
veal crates.

Even if the Commission does not and will not contribute to livestock industrialisation, it will, together with
several Member States and developing countries, the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the
World Bank, consider animal welfare issues in the framework of the international LEAD (1) initiative. It is
expected that the study to be carried out in Asia and Latin America in the coming months with the
support of the Community environment budget line, as well as other works done by various organisations
on the same subject, will give strategic guidance to both national and international decision-makers.

(1) Livestock, environment and development.

(2001/C 163 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3185/00

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Implications of Regulation 2092/91 for imports of organic produce from developing countries

Regulation 2092/91 (1) erects unnecessary obstacles for developing countries wishing to export organically
grown produce.

Regulation 2092/91 provides for two possibilities whereby organically produced food may be imported
into the EU. Under Article 11(1), the country(cid:146)s rules and inspection system may be approved by the EU in
accordance with a special procedure laid down in detail in Regulation 94/92. The country is then entered
on a list of (cid:145)approved countries(cid:146). The other possibility is based on an exemption (Article 11(6)) lasting until
2005 under which a Member State may authorise imports from a third country which is not on the list of
(cid:145)approved countries(cid:146), provided the importer can demonstrate to the country(cid:146)s authorities that the products
meet the requirements of the Regulation. Applications must therefore be made for separate import licences
in respect of each individual contract.

The bureaucracy involved in issuing licences is incomprehensible to many importers and exporters. The
rules frequently change and are applied differently in different countries. The two issues which seem to be
causing the most problems at present are the uncertainty as to how group-certified goods are to be
assessed, and the requirement of EN45011 accreditation. There are many examples of shipments of
organic produce being severely delayed or held at ports and having to be sold later at lower prices than
conventional products.

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/55

What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the proposal to draw up a list of approved inspection bodies to operate
in different countries,
in tandem with the list of (cid:145)approved countries(cid:146), which could create the same
certainty and predictability for exporters in non-listed countries as exporters in listed countries currently
enjoy?

The Regulation currently requires individual inspection of crops. Is the Commission in favour of amending
the Regulation in order to identify criteria for the authorisation of (cid:145)group certification(cid:146) and thereby make it
easier for developing countries to export organically grown food?

Does the Commission take the view that a change in the rules would promote free trade at the same time
as promoting organic farming in global terms, thus facilitating developing countries(cid:146) access to a market in
which they would have a comparative advantage, given that many farmers in developing countries have
never been able to afford to switch to chemical agriculture (a (cid:145)win-win-win(cid:146) situation)?

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Honourable Member states that Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic
production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and food-
stuffs erects unnecessary obstacles with regard to imports of organic products from third countries,
including developing countries. The Commission cannot agree with this view for the following reasons.

One of the main objectives of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 is to create a market for organic products
which is credible for the consumers. Only in a market where there is a demand for organic products from
consumers can organic farming grow. Given that primary objective, this Regulation has put a major
emphasis on inspection of the products which are placed on the market with a label referring to organic
production. Articles 8, 9, 10 and Annex III relate to inspection of producers, processors and importers of
organic products in the Community, and Article 11 establishes that products from third countries must
satisfy equivalent requirements. The requirement of (cid:145)equivalency(cid:146) is applied in many other areas, and is
accepted under the Technical barriers to trade (TBT) arrangement and under the 1999 Codex Alimentarius
guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of organically produced products.

Before 1991 the Community market of organic products was marginal and fraudulent practices were
suspected. The Community regime of protection of the (cid:145)organic(cid:146) label and the inspection related thereto
has given the market the necessary credibility to build the confidence and interest from a growing number
of consumers. This permitted not only organic production to grow within the Community but also
increasing imports from some 100 third countries all over the world. To keep the market growing, in the
interest of both the producers in the Community and the exporters and producers in third countries, it is
essential to maintain its credibility.
It has to be borne in mind that participating in this market is
a voluntary engagement and that maintaining the credibility of the market requires efforts from both
producers within the Community as well as from those outside the Community. Recent experiences in the
food area have shown the disastrous effects of a crisis on the credibility of a conventional food market.
Such a crisis would even more affect the market of organic products.

The Commission is aware that in their duties under Article 11(6) of the above Regulation, Member States
have no identical practices in order to evaluate the equivalency of the inspection arrangements the
importers submit to their evaluation. The Commission is currently identifying the documentary require-
ments in the different Member States. A comparison will show whether the differences are significant and
whether action for harmonisation is required as a matter of priority. In any event, it is a matter for the
importer to ensure that the necessary procedures have been finalised in due time and before presenting the
products concerned for import into the Community.

C 163 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

With regard to the suggestion of the Honourable Member to draw up a list of approved inspection bodies,
the Commission will, in view of the deadline of 31 December 2005, review the overall operation of the
regime of Article 11(1) (recognition of equivalency by the Commission) and of Article 11(6) (recognition
of equivalency by Member States). In that context the development of lists of inspection bodies which have
been approved by Member States in the framework of Article 11(6) could be explored. This would
however require that the conditions under which Member States evaluate equivalency are fully harmonised,
which at this stage is not the case.

it

With regard to the inspection of groups of producers in third countries,
is the Member States(cid:146)
responsibility to evaluate, in the framework of Article 11(6), the equivalency of the regimes proposed to
them by the importers, and it is up to the Member State involved to be satisfied that the proposed
inspection system gives adequate guarantees that the production rules are effectively satisfied. In the
Community every producer is inspected once a year, as a minimum, and it is known that certain producers
in the Community, who apply the organic farming production rules, have no access to organic labelling
because, for financial or other reasons, they have not submitted their holding to the inspection system. In
that context it seems fully reasonable that also in third countries all producers wishing to be considered as
organic, with the advantages that confers, be submitted to a similar requirement and be thoroughly
inspected. It is known that in third countries, including developing countries, chemical products are in use
in agriculture under conditions which are not acceptable in organic farming and sometimes even not in
European conventional farming. Where however,
in particular cases, it is demonstrated that it is very
unlikely that the organic production rules would not be satisfied and that it is excluded that producers can
have access to prohibited products, the Commission would not oppose the Member State involved
applying some flexibility. This will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, taking into account the
uniformity of the production of the individual operators of the group, the way in which the group has
a control on the production practices of its individual members and the overall production conditions in
the region concerned.

(2001/C 163 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3190/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Energy costs in horticulture, differing conditions of competition

Among those businesses whose survival is increasingly threatened by the rapidly rising energy prices are
the horticultural firms of northern Germany, much of whose produce is cultivated in greenhouses. Because
of tax advantages, in the Netherlands, for example, competition in these tightly-knit regions is extremely
distorted. According to my research, German horticultural firms in the German-Dutch border region have
to bear more than double the burden in energy costs than their Dutch competitors because of oil company
price policy and higher VAT. With competition so fierce, the energy price rises cannot be passed on to the
consumer. The already existing distortions of competition due to the absence of tax harmonisation in
Europe have now been made glaringly obvious by the rising energy prices and threaten various industries
and occupations in different ways.

Could the Commission answer the following questions:

1.

Is the Commission aware of the precarious competitive environment in the horticultural industry?

2. What are the Commission(cid:146)s plans to eliminate or alleviate such distortions of competition in Europe?

3. What action will the Commission take against the oil companies(cid:146) differing price policy in the various

Member States?

4. Will the Commission take a strong line against obvious subsidies from Member States for different

industries? If so, by what means?

5. How will the Commission push through a harmonisation of the different rates of VAT?