Foodlaw-Reading
Dr David Jukes, The University of Reading, UK
|
|
Commission Roadmap, 27 March 2018
The Commission has issued a draft Roadmap as a consultation for opening discussions with the US on the issue of imported beef.
 |
Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement with the United States of America regarding the importation of beef from animals not treated with certain growth-promoting hormones with the purpose of establishing country-allocation of the tariff-rate quota for hormone-free beef within the current revised Memorandum of Understanding A copy of the document is available on this site (click image). |
The following provides the main text from the document:
A. Context, problem definition and subsidiarity check
Context
This initiative is intended to modify the current arrangements with the US regarding the importation of hormone-free beef. It is not meant to address in any way the issue of the EU ban on hormones-treated beef itself.
The EU-US dispute on hormone-treated beef was subject to a World Trade Organisation panel in 2008 which issued a mixed ruling allowing the United States to continue its trade sanctions on EU products (mostly agricultural ones, including meat), but allowing the European Union to maintain its ban on hormone-treated beef. In 2009 following this ruling, the EU and the US negotiated an interim agreement (called "Memorandum of Understanding" or MoU) paving the way for a future conclusion of this long-standing dispute. The agreement in question provides for the import of hormone-free beef into the EU through a duty-free tariff rate quota of 45 000 t product weight, currently in place. As agreed in the MoU with the US, the quota is not exclusively reserved for the US, as to have done so would not be in compliance with WTO law. This interim agreement was revised in 2014 confirming this approach and with the aim to review at some point in the future the functioning of this agreement and the possible settlement of the WTO dispute.
On 22 December 2016, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice of public hearing and request for comments regarding the reinstatement of retaliatory action, i.e. of trade sanctions that are currently suspended, in connection with EU measures concerning imports of US beef and beef products. This followed a request of representatives of the US beef industry in a letter dated 8 December 2016, where the US beef industry considers that the access to the EU beef market that it currently enjoys does not meet the US industry's expectations, notably because other supplying countries have increased their share of exports within the quota.
The EU has fully complied, both in the letter and in spirit, with the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the United States in 2009 and revised in 2014 and is committed to keep its high food safety and health standards. Only products complying with these standards are allowed into the EU market. For instance, only beef from cattle not treated with hormones can be imported into the EU. Nonetheless, the EU stands ready to discuss any concern that the US Administration raised and in particular to consider what adjustments to the MoU could assuage US concerns.
EU-US Revised Memorandum of Understanding: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0044&rid=2
Problem the initiative aims to tackle
After several years of operating, the interim solution needs to be reviewed notably in the light of the administrative steps taken by the US regarding the possible withdrawal from the MoU and the possible re-imposition of trade sanctions on EU exports to the US. Ref. Ares(2018)1684779 - 27/03/2018
Basis for EU intervention (legal basis and subsidiarity check)
The initiative falls under the exclusive competence of the EU according to Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Therefore, the subsidiarity principle does not apply.
B. What does the initiative aim to achieve and how
The aim of this initiative is to address US concerns raised regarding the implementation of the MoU, to find a mutually satisfactory solution in line with WTO rules, and to facilitate the eventual termination of the long-standing dispute.
