8 Organic food and farming
| (27158)
5101/06
COM(05) 671
| Draft Council Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products
Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto in agricultural products and foodstuffs
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 26 October 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xx (2005-06), para 3 (1 March 2006) and HC 34-xxxii (2005-06), para 3 (21 June 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | December 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
8.1 The requirements, including labelling, which agricultural
products and foodstuffs must meet in order to be regarded as organic
are currently laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91.[26]
Since that Regulation was enacted, there have been a number of
significant developments, which led the Commission to put forward
in June 2004 a Communication[27]
setting out a European Action Plan for organic food and farming.
This was followed in December 2005 by the current document setting
out legislative proposals bringing into effect a number of the
earlier recommendations, and taking the opportunity to repeal
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91.
8.2 More specifically, the proposal re-states a number
of underlying principles, and addresses particular areas, including
the need for flexibility in order to reduce the number of derogations
required by Member States; labelling, including the basis for
the use of the EU logo; a continuing prohibition on the use of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs); a re-casting of the current
Regulation in line with the risk-based approach to official food
and feed controls set out in the more general Regulation (EC)
No. 882/2004; and access to the Community market for imports.
8.3 As we noted in our Report of 1 March 2006, the
Government had simply said that, in laying down the framework
for organic production, the proposal would reduce the level of
detail and bring together various objectives and principles, though
the application of those principles would require further detailed
rules to be drafted at a later stage and laid down in Commission
implementing Regulations. It added that the proposal also aims
to harmonise rules on organic aquaculture, clarify the position
in respect of GMOs, deal with single market issues arising from
the use of private organic logos, and simplify the system for
controlling imports of organic produce from third countries.
8.4 We commented that we found this analysis somewhat
cursory, and we said that we would like the Government to set
out more explicitly the position as regards GMOs, and to explain
what single market issues arise from the use of private organic
logos. We also suggested that it would be helpful to have a fuller
description of the likely impact of the proposals on organic wine
production and on aquaculture.
8.5 We subsequently received from the Minister for
Sustainable Farming and Food at the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) a letter of 2 June 2006 addressing
these various points, which we drew to the attention of the House
in our Report of 21 June 2006. However, we also noted that his
department had now concluded that, even though the Commission's
intention was not to increase the burden on organic operators,
it would be sensible to produce a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
We therefore said that we would await this before taking a final
view on this document.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 26 October
2006
8.6 We have now received from the Minister a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 26 October 2006, enclosing the promised
Regulatory Impact Assessment. This notes that the area of organic
land in the UK is 620,000 hectares, representing just over 4%
of the total agricultural area; that there are now around 4,000
organic farmers and growers (and around 2,000 organic processors
or importers); and that sales of organic produce reached an estimated
£1.2 billion in 2005, with around 44% of this market being
supplied by UK farmers.
8.7 The Assessment then concentrates on two principal
options — acceptance of the Commission proposal as it stands,
and the negotiation of changes which would meet certain concerns
of the UK industry. In particular, it notes that the original
proposal would give rise to two main difficulties. First, it retains
a requirement in the current Directive that organic and non-organic
feed production should be separated. Although the UK currently
has a derogation, this is due to end in 2007, and the Government's
aim is to amend this new provision so as to enable organic and
non-organic feed to be on the same premises so long as they are
physically separated (in time or space). This would produce a
saving of up to £3.4 million. Secondly, the proposal introduces
new risk-based (and hence less onerous) certification requirements,
which would bring wider benefits to the UK of up to £30 million.
However, it does not include wholesalers trading in pre-packed
goods among those categories which would be exempt from these
requirements, and, since the UK currently allows such an exemption
under the present Directive, their inclusion could give rise to
additional costs of between £500,000 and £10 million.
The Government has therefore sought to avoid these, by arguing
that wholesalers should in future be explicitly exempted from
the certification requirements.
8.8 In addition, the Assessment says that, although
the Government regards the system proposed for governing trade
with third countries as a vast simplification of that currently
in place, the new regime could nevertheless lead to difficulties
at Community ports, in that it would provide direct access to
imports from licensed third country producers without the need
for any accompanying documents indicating compliance with organic
standards: also, it would use Codex Alimentarius, rather
than Community legislation, as a measure of equivalence. However,
the Government now expects the proposal to be amended to require
all imports from third countries to be accompanied by an operator
licence, and for equivalence to be based on the relevant Community
legislation, merely taking Codex Alimentarius into account.
Conclusion
8.9 We have noted this further information, and,
in the light of the explanation provided, we are now content to
clear these proposals.
26 OJ No. L 198, 22.7.1991, p.1. Back
27
(25741) 10436/04; see HC 42-xxvi (2003-04), para 2 (7 July 2004)
and HC 38-iv (2004-05), para 7 (19 January 2005). Back
|
