MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
4 February 2003
pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure
by Danielle Auroi, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Carlos Bautista Ojeda, Eurig Wyn, Giorgio Celli, Monica Frassoni, Jillian Evans, Camilo Nogueira Román, Bart Staes, Alain Lipietz, Nelly Maes and Didier Rod
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
on the WTO agricultural trade negotiations
See also joint motion for a resolution RC-B5-0102/2003
B5‑0102/2003
European Parliament resolution on the WTO agricultural trade negotiations
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its resolutions of 13 March 2001, 25 October 2001 and 13 December 2001 on the WTO negotiations,
– having regard to its resolution of 7 November 2002 (B5-0563/2002) on the mid-term review of Agenda 2000,
– having regard to the Commission’s legislative proposals of 21 January 2003 on the mid‑term review of the common agricultural policy (COM(2003) 0006-0012 fin.),
– having regard to the EC’s proposal for modalities in the WTO agriculture negotiations as adopted by the General Affairs Council on 27 January,
A. whereas agriculture needs specific and careful treatment in trade negotiations as it has implications for the food security of each country and its population and relates to food safety and the sustainable use and protection of natural resources and landscapes,
B. whereas, in view of the still increasing hunger in many parts of the world, trade agreements in agriculture should in no way undermine the right of people to feed themselves and to have access to land, water, seeds and other basic natural resources,
C. whereas negotiations on trade in agriculture should not put pressure on developing countries to open their markets to imports of farm products; developed countries must stop export subsidies and other forms of dumping, which have destroyed local and regional markets and subsistence farming in many parts of the world,
D. whereas EU and US international trade policies are therefore highly sensitive for developing countries and the outcome of the current stage of proposals on negotiating modalities will have a significant impact on their willingness to negotiate on the rest of the Doha ‘single undertaking’ package,
E. whereas the EU should as a matter of urgency stop all forms of dumping; whereas external protection should be further qualified, including the various non-trade concerns mentioned in the Commission’s negotiation proposal; whereas an agreement on a clearly defined framework of public support for a diversified and multifunctional agriculture is to be reached,
F. whereas the EU, being the most important region as regards agricultural imports worldwide, most of them from developing countries, should make further efforts to improve the income of the poorest developing countries through assistance with diversifying production and increasing the export of locally processed high-value products to the EU,
1. Takes note of the Commission’s proposal for modalities in the WTO agriculture negotiations, which was adopted by the General Affairs Council;
2. Welcomes the general aims of the proposal, essentially the establishment of an equitable and market-oriented system and the promotion of sustainable rural development and the right to maintain and support a model of agriculture which addresses environmental protection, food safety, rural development and employment;
3. Criticises at the same time the fact that – within the EU – the incomes of the majority of farmers are rapidly decreasing, as market prices do not cover their production costs, while a small number of processing industries and retailers accumulate a growing share of public funds; insists therefore that modulation of payments to farmers following social criteria and the principle of cross-compliance needs to be taken into account in the negotiation package; stresses in this context that a partially decoupled aid scheme is workable only in conjunction with a special form of qualified external protection and limited regulation of internal markets;
4. Stresses the fact that further market access to the EU feed and food markets does not automatically mean improved income for developing countries and the neediest sections of their populations; points to the market power of a few multinational corporations running agroindustrial production in developing countries, for example of chicken, pork and shrimps, to be exported to the markets of the developed countries, often at dumping prices and without adhering to environmental and food safety standards;
5. Stresses that the decisions adopted with regard to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the current mid-term review process, in particular the intended shift from market intervention and export subsidies towards investment in rural development and quality production, must become an essential element of the European Union’s negotiation strategy; warns that without a substantial increase in public support for rural infrastructure, direct marketing and quality production, the reform will have further negative effects on farmers’ income and rural employment;
6. Calls upon the Commission to insist on the inclusion of non-trade concerns in the negotiation modalities, including employment as part of rural development, the objectives of preventive consumer protection and mandatory labelling, and protection of the environment, public health and animal welfare; without agreement on full integration of these concerns into the modalities on agriculture no further move for access to European markets should be made;
7. Calls upon the Commission to support the developing countries in achieving special safeguard agreements regarding security of food production, including subsistence farming, and special protection for small farmers and their local markets; welcomes the proposal to introduce a so-called food security box and encourages the Commission to develop further the revision of the de minimis clause to allow domestic support for food security and agricultural diversification;
8. Welcomes the commitment of the Commission to finance and implement well-targeted technical assistance to promote sustainable rural development in developing countries; points to the priority for training and education, as well as improved access to land and natural resources for those parts of the population most in need; insists that priority for this technical aid should lie with food security measures of the respective country and region;
9. Takes the view that the EU should take a firm stand against the United States’ newly increased farm supports, which were agreed in the 2002 farm bill; stresses that, as regards the Blair House agreement and the deficit of the EU in plant proteins, negotiations must address the existing inequalities in market shares, also regarding an improvement of crop rotation within the EU; insists that the EU must defend its right to define criteria for precaution in food safety and standards for consumer protection, in particular as regards the authorisation, traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived food and feed products;
10. Believes that consumers, including farmers, must have the right to know how food- and feedstuffs have been produced, and that labelling is particularly important in this regard; considers that WTO rules must not unreasonably limit provision for voluntary or compulsory labelling systems; believes that the public is becoming increasingly concerned about the ethical implications of production methods, the protection of animal welfare and the effects of production on climate change and energy use, for example, and that these concerns should be taken on board in the negotiations;
11. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States, the WTO, the WHO, the FAO and the UN Secretary-General.