Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
COUNCIL OFBrussels, 22 June 2009
THE EUROPEAN UNION
10359/09 ADD 2
AGRI 238
COVER NOTE
from: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 29 May 2009
to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative
Subject: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on Agricultural Product Quality Policy
-
-Impact Assessment Report
· Part A(II) Marketing standards
Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2009) 670.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
(Version: 08-4-09)
DISCLAIMER:
THIS REPORT COMMITS OLY THE COMMISSIO'S SERVICES IVOLVED I ITS
PREPARATIO AD DOES OT PREJUDGE THE FIAL FORM OF AY DECISIO
TO BE TAKE BY THE COMMISSIO
ANNEX A(II): MARKETING STANDARDS
CONTENTS
A(II) 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
A(II) 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION....................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Problem identification.............................................................................................................. 10
2.2. What are the underlying drivers of the problem?..................................................................... 11
2.2.1.
Market conditions.................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2. Multiple sets of rules ............................................................................................... 12
2.2.3. Decision making structure....................................................................................... 12
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent by the problem?......................................... 13
2.3.1.
Farmers, first processors and packers...................................................................... 13
2.3.2. Food processors and retailers .................................................................................. 15
2.3.3. Consumers............................................................................................................... 16
2.3.4. Public authorities..................................................................................................... 17
2.4. How would the problem evolve without a change in policy?................................................... 17
2.5. Does the EU have the right to act?........................................................................................... 18
A(II) 3. OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................... 18
3.1. General objective ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2. Specific objective..................................................................................................................... 18
A(II) 4. POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 19
4.1. No EU Action .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.2. International standards ............................................................................................................. 19
4.3. EU marketing standards ........................................................................................................... 20
4.3.1.
Status quo................................................................................................................ 20
4.3.2. Simplification.......................................................................................................... 21
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
A(ii) 1. INTRODUCTION
EU marketing standards are regulations that lay down:
definitions of products, also referred to as `product identities',
minimum product standards,
production methods,
product categories, and
labelling requirements.
for a significant number of agricultural products and some processed foods.
Other functions of marketing standards, which will however not be taken forward in this report concern
1:
tools for price reporting,
eligibility for market intervention measures.
In general, EU marketing standards are designed to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market and the efficient transfer of products on the domestic or international market. By developing common trading references, trade in products, especially over longer distances, is made easier.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Definitions of certain categories of cheese, and their appropriate labelling, are laid down by CODEX and applied directly by Member States in the EU (without EC regulatory implementation). In addition to public marketing standards, private standards exist. These may be laid down in the context of private quality assurance schemes (see Annex D) or form part of the contractual terms agreed upon by the buyer and seller. In general these private requirements go beyond the requirements laid down in EU public marketing standards.
According to UN/ECE the benefits of marketing standards are:
"The commercial quality standards developed by the UNECE Working Party on Agricultural Quality Standards help facilitate international trade, encourage high- quality production, improve profitability and protect consumer interests."
3
Most EU public marketing standards are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (single CMO); others are laid down in product specific directives, sometimes referred to as the `vertical directives'. For an overview of marketing standards, please see Annex I.
Product categories for which marketing standards apply are:
Beef and veal Cocoa and chocolate products
Coffee extracts Eggs
Fruit and vegetables, excluding potatoes Fruit juice
Sugar Wine
Fruit jams, jellies and marmalades Honey
Milk Hops
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Fresh fruit and vegetables standards
The first European marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables, covering most of the important products (around 20 already) were established in the early 60s within the first Common Organisation of the Market for fruit and vegetables. The marketing standards (at that time called "quality standards") were in fact one of the central element of this first CMO for fruit and vegetables.
They were preceded by national standards in several EU members such as the Netherlands, France, Germany or Italy. In a lot of non EC-founding countries also, marketing standards existed (Spain, South Africa, USA), some even before the start of the XXth Century (for Citrus fruit trade in particular).
They had been already subject to a certain degree of harmonisation/discussion within the framework of 1951 Geneva Protocol on standardization of fresh fruit and vegetables and dry and dried fruit intended for international trade, managed by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (UNECE and in particular the Working Party on Agricultural Quality Standards also covers standards on dry and dried produce, meat, egg products, cut flowers and seed potatoes). OECE and then OECD also interested themselves very early to these issues for facilitation of international trade. The creation in 1985 of a Codex Committee on Fresh Tropical fruit and vegetables, transformed in 1995 into a Codex Committee for fresh fruit and vegetables allowed the development of another forum for international harmonization of fruit and vegetables standards. All these institutions are committed to cooperate and avoid having different standards for the same products.
Main justifications of such marketing standards (as described in the recitals of the Regulation mentioned above) are facilitating trade on the base of fair competition, helping producers to meet consumer expectations and keeping off the market unsatisfactory products, thus contributing to higher profitability for producers.
There are different concrete elements in marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables.
-
*Definition of product.
Usually for fresh fruit and vegetables, this is not a complicated issue. In certain cases however, the definition, the delimitation between different fruits or vegetables, delimitation between the large number of hybrids in small citrus fruit, some names with more added value on the market than others may create difficulties. The definition section of marketing standards has also been used to define different types of products of a certain fruit or vegetable (round tomatoes, oblong tomatoes, ribbed tomatoes, cherry or cocktail tomatoes).
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
-
*Classification & sizing
Standards for classification in 2 or 3 quality Classes: Extra Class ("superior quality), Class I ("good quality) and Class II (above minimum requirements). This "quality classification" is relying on the degree of defects (skin defects, development defect, misshapen, etc...). Compliance with standards implies the products are classified according this "quality classification".
Standards also provide for means to size fruit and vegetables. Three elements are defined:
The way the size of a certain fruit or vegetable should be sized (diameter, weight, count,...),
the degree of uniformity in size required in the same package, this can be set by a maximum difference between the smallest and the largest fruit in the same package (e.g.: 5mm for Class I apples) or by fixed size scales (e.g.: tomatoes and citrus fruit),
a minimum size and for few cases a maximum size, (e.g.: courgettes and asparagus). Historically, minimum sizes are supposed to reflect a minimum stage of development but the development of other maturity criteria has weakened the justifications for laying down minimum sizes.
Contrary to "quality classification", sizing is not always compulsory. Many vegetables in particular, as well as Class II products shall usually not be sized.
-
*Other elements in marketing standards for fresh fruit and vegetables
Marketing standards also provide for some further elements on uniformity of products (products packed together should be of same quality Class, type, origin, and, where appropriate, size and variety). Packages should be clean and fit for the fruit and vegetables concerned. The visible fruit and vegetables in a package should be representative of the full package.
The standards also include some tolerances in terms of quality classification and sizing.
-
*Labelling
Finally the marketing standards require some elements to be labelled on any package of fruit and
vegetables: name and address (or code allowing tracing it back) of the packer, name of product if not visible, quality Class and country of origin. Depending on the products, extra information can be required: type or variety of product where this information is not self-evident from the appearance of the product (varieties of apples, pears, oranges, etc...); size when products are sized, in few cases crop year (when products can be kept long in storage: walnuts), etc...
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
At the same time, the Commission has repealed 26 specific EC marketing standards on fruit and vegetables out of the 36 existing and maintained the specific marketing standards for 10 families of products (apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes). The 10 families of products represent 75% of intra- Community trade. It should be noted that an eleventh fruit (bananas) is still covered by a specific marketing standard.
This modification also foresees that Member States may exempt from the specific marketing standards, products presented for retail sale to consumers for their personal use and labelled "product intended for processing" or with any other equivalent wording. Controls by Member States of compliance to the GMS and the 10 remaining specific standards have been also simplified, allowing Member States to rely more on assessment of risk of non-compliance in order to target their control activities. This Regulation will apply from 1.7.2009.
Fruit juices
Since 1975 definitions of fruit juices and nectars have been laid down at EC level, justified by the fact that differences between national laws concerning fruit juices and nectars intended for human consumption could result in conditions of unfair competition likely to mislead consumers, and thereby have a direct effect on the establishment and functioning of the common market.
Three main products defined are: « fruit juice »; « fruit juice from concentrate »; and « Fruit nectar ». The directive also includes a list of authorised ingredients, treatments and substances.
At international level, an ad-hoc Codex alimentarius taskforce has amended the Codex alimentarius standards on fruit and vegetables juices a few years ago.
In Europe, there is a well-organised association of fruit juice producers (AIJN), significantly representative of the sector
-
5.This organisation elaborated a code of practice which their
members implement and which is regularly updated. This code of practice sets quality requirements and criteria for the evaluation of identity and authenticity of fruit juices. It includes, for example, the minimum brix (soluble solids) levels for the main fruit juices from concentrate, giving clear references for the EU requirement "organoleptic and analytical characteristics at least equivalent".
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Eggs
In 1975 Common Market Organisation for eggs provided for the setting of marketing standards which relate in particular to grading by quality and weight, packing, warehousing, transport, presentation and marking of eggs. Purpose of such standards was to contribute to an improvement in the quality of eggs and, consequently, facilitate their sale: whereas it is therefore in the interest of producers, traders and consumers that marketing standards should be applied in respect of hen eggs suitable for human consumption. Currently, Council reg. 1234/2007 (Single CMO) art 116, 121 and Annex XIV, and Commission reg. 589/2008 provide for marketing standards for eggs at the EU level.
The main functions of the standard are: 1. facilitate trade; 2. set size classifications; 3. provide basic information to consumers; 4. reserve value-adding terms
-
1.Definition of the product qualities to facilitate the trade on the internal and international markets (A and B eggs).Eggs are classified in 2 categories A and B, depending of certain parameters, which are based on international standards (UN-ECE). Only A eggs can be commercialised as "table eggs", B eggs can be used by the industry as egg products only. For A eggs the denomination "extra" or "extra fresh" can be used on a voluntary basis up to the 9th day after eggs are laid.
-
2.Size classification:
A eggs are classified by weight in 4 categories. This classification allows comparisons between comparable products on the EU market and producer prices may be very different between categories of size.
Example of price quotation by size on the German market (05.02.2009).
weight /100 pieces
XL >73g 11.40
L >63g / <73g 10.20
M >53g / <63g 9.50
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Producer prices also differ depending of the farming method since eggs value on the retail market is different. Table eggs imported from third countries that are produced under equivalent farming methods may be labelled using the same indications of farming method. Alternatively, the expression "non-EC standard" shall appear on the pack, and an indication that the farming method is "not determined" on the egg.
Indication of origin appears through the ISO code included in the producer code on the egg.
-
4.Protect value-adding terms. This allows products which have particular characteristics or attributes to be distinguished from standard production (e.g. "free range"). Production costs are substantially different depending of the farming method. Since the indication of the farming method is mandatory, and the reserved terms are exclusive, consumers can easily select the value-added product and at the same time they are less likely to select the standard product by mistake since it too must be labelled ("cage"). In this way the marketing standard aims at guaranteeing a fair financial return to the producer of the value-added product.
Veal
Until recently, the production and marketing of the meat of bovine animals aged twelve months or less varied depending on the Member State. Essentially, two major types of production system exist. In the first, the animals are fed mainly on milk and milk products and are slaughtered, generally at around six or seven months. In the second, the animals are fed almost exclusively on cereals supplemented with fodder, and are slaughtered at an age of ten months and above.
The first type of production system exists in almost all the Member States, but has developed in five of them in particular (FR, IT, NL, BE and DE). The second, on the other hand, is known and has developed in only a small number of Member States, mainly NL, DK and ES.
Meat produced under these two systems was generally marketed under one single sales description, at least on the main consumer markets in the Community. No reference was made to the type of feed received by the animals or their age at the time of slaughter.
Experience showed that this practice had a direct effect on the establishment and functioning of the single market: ex slaughterhouse, there were price differences of about EUR 2 to EUR 2.50 per kg between meats produced under the two systems.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Wine
'wine' can only be produced from grapes and produced in accordance with approved oenological practices; imported wine must comply with practices approved in the EU or by the OIV, which sets the international standard.
6
Chocolate
The definition and composition of product labelled as chocolate was the result of protracted discussions within the EU owing to differences in consumer expectations and differences in manufacture in different Member States. As a result, `chocolate' has a defined product identity, which permits the inclusion of up to 5% of certain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter which must be indicated on the label. Various other designations of chocolate are defined, including 'milk chocolate', for which special labelling provisions apply in three Member States. The chocolate directive, which took some 30 years of negotiations, shows how difficult it can be to agree product identities for processed products applicable throughout the EU.
7
Milk
Drinking milk rules were revised in 2007. Formerly, drinking milk could only be sold in three categories according to fat content: milk with a fat content falling between two classifications could not be sold. However, in the ten new Member States a series of specially negotiated derogations applied for their home market based on their domestic situation at the time of accession. In 2007 this was changed to allow the sale of all drinking milk, EU-wide, whereby milk with a fat content between the compulsory designations must indicate the percentage fat content.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
International aspects of marketing standards8
Through its Scheme for the Application of International Standards for Fruit and Vegetables, the OECD facilitates the adoption of quality standards to present production, trade and marketing conditions, promotes uniform quality control procedures and disseminates quality assurance guidelines. The OECD applies the UN/ECE fresh fruit and vegetable standards to the 47 products listed below.
These international standards are designed for products moving in international trade between and to UN/ECE or OECD member countries. They are intended for application at the point of dispatching control. Of these UN/ECE fresh fruit and vegetable standards, there is no EU equivalent for bilberries and blueberries, early and ware potatoes, raspberries, rhubarb, Chinese cabbage and broccoli.
8 See ADAS Consulting Limited and the University of Reading
Annonas, Apples and pears, Apricots, Artichokes, Asparagus, Aubergines, Avocados, Beans, Bilberries and Blueberries, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, Headed Cabbages, Carrots, Cauliflowers, Chinese Cabbages, Cherries, Citrus fruit, Cucumbers, Courgettes, Cultivated mushrooms, Edible sweet chestnuts, Fennel, Fresh figs, Garlic, Horse-radish, Kiwifruit, Leeks, Lettuce and endives, Mangoes, Melons, Onions, Peaches and Nectarines, Peas, Plums, Potatoes, Early, Ware, Seed, Radishes, Raspberries, Ribbed celery, Rhubarb, Scorzonera, Spinach, Strawberries, Sweet peppers, Table grapes, Tomatoes, Watermelons, Witloof chicory.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
A(ii) 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1. Problem identification
In addition to the benefits of EU marketing standards, a number of potential difficulties are also apparent. These potential difficulties may be grouped in two categories process related and content related.
Process related potential problems refer to difficulties resulting from the procedure that is followed to establish EU public marketing standards:
An asynchronous development between EU public marketing standards and market
trends, which may lead to lack of flexibility in operation and prohibitions on the retail sale of innovative or sub-standard, but safe and hygienic foodstuffs
9;
Farmers and producers are confronted with various rules on farming methods and
standards from other sources, public or private, that vary, overlap and in cases may be duplicative.
Content related potential problems refer to difficulties that result from the actual content of EU marketing standards, the product requirements, compliance and control duties:
Complying with EU marketing standards requires efforts from farmers, packers,
processors, even if the farmer does not want to make use of specific elements of the
marketing standard, as they are compulsory;
Controlling and enforcing EU marketing standards is burdensome and costly for
Member State authorities, whereas at the same time private controllers, in the context of private quality schemes or hired by retailers, may also carry out controls
Inspections on compliance with EU marketing standards is burdensome to operators
(farmers, packers, processors, traders, retailers)10:
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Is the marketing standard favouring unblemished responsible for pesticide use?
Some stakeholders are concerned that pesticides may be used in order to perfect the visual appearance of fruit and vegetables (see for example, "The hidden price of cosmetics" (Friends of the Earth 2002)
-
11.The accusation is that pesticides are used in
circumstances where they are not needed for, say, plant health reasons. Blemishes in fruit may be a consequence of disease that needs to be treated for the health of the plant and the crop. However, more difficult is to determine whether farmers are using the pesticides to meet consumer demand for unblemished produce or whether it is only to meet a marketing standard. The Friends of the Earth document refers to retailer demands that go beyond the EU marketing standard, which points to consumer demand or at least retailer interpretation of consumer demand. In the organic sector, some effort is put into educating consumers that they should expect small blemishes and imperfections in produce as a positive characteristic
-
12.This also supports the case
that retailer/consumer demand rather than the standards are behind the drive for perfect-looking produce.
The core problems on which the impact assessment will focus are:
The asynchronous development of EU marketing standards and market trends as a
result of a time consuming and often cumbersome process of updating and modernising EU marketing standards.
The efforts that have to be made by farmers, operators and Member States' authorities
to comply with, implement and enforce EU marketing standards.
2.2. What are the underlying drivers of the problem?
The underlying drivers of the problem are:
With constantly changing market conditions and consequently evolving consumer
demands, markets face an increasing trend toward differentiation of products.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
2.2.1. Market conditions
Market conditions change as a result of many factors. These include financial, energy and economic issues as well as environmental and societal influences. They have an effect on the supply and demand side, on producers and consumers. Examples of changing market conditions and trends include the increased search for low priced products during times of a financial downturn, consumers looking for environmentally friendly produced food or products whose production and distribution generates a low carbon footprint.
Consumers are on the lookout for products that meet their changing and developing requirements. Evolving market conditions and drivers have an impact on operators, as operators try to anticipate these developments and differentiate their product from that of competitors, whilst responding to these changing market conditions. Such differentiation may result in different packaging, quality, size, shape or colours of products. Suppliers may respond to evolving market demands from consumers but may just as well try to develop a new trend via the introduction of a new and different product.
2.2.2. Multiple sets of rules
Farmers and operators face demands, product requirements from different sources, private or public, which may apply to some products and not to others. The requirements are sometimes overlapping and may in other respects be duplicative. This maze of rules can lead to duplication of efforts, as for example is the case with controls. These may be carried out by more than one official control authority one to control application of the marketing standard and a separate body to inspect application of hygiene and safety rules.
In addition, private control services (such as certifiers) may need to control compliance with private standards. A grower or cooperative may have to cooperate several times with controllers visiting his premises, for public and for private control purposes.
Other examples to illustrate the various rules an operator may face are measures related to the identity (generally concerning its method of production) or to labelling, not regulated in marketing standards but in horizontal rules. These horizontal rules also apply to products subject to marketing standards and concern for example rules on labelling of net weight or date of minimum durability, on the possible use of additives, etc.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Since the first adoption of EU marketing standards, the number of Member States, the geographical area but also the marketing "landscape" has grown and developed. With a varied market situation, consumer preferences, climatic conditions and production structures it may now take longer to find common ground on EU marketing standards.
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent by the problem?
Several economic parties are affected by these problems: The first party concerned are farmers. They produce food products and ingredients for retail and for the processing industry that have to comply with applicable marketing standards.
Other parties affected by marketing standards are found upstream, trading companies, food processors, retailers and consumers.
Finally, administrations are affected as they are involved in developing and enforcing the correct implementation of marketing standards.
2.3.1. Farmers, first processors and packers
Farmers are affected in the sense that they deliver products that respect requirements set by trading partners as well as marketing standards. This conditions their production process and farm management. Marketing standards therefore have an important effect on the output delivered by a farmer in terms of quantity and quality as well as on the income generated by the farmer's products.
Process
From a farmer's or operator's perspective, marketing standards may prevent the placing on the market of a product that is new, innovative but for which EU marketing standards have not made provision yet. Alternatively, the marketing standard may prevent the retail sale of products that are basically safe to consume but do not correspond to the minimum quality requirements laid down in the EU marketing standard.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
requirements that have been agreed upon and which may vary between buyers as well as conditions set out in private certification schemes, to which farmers/operators have signed up. These various requirements may be complementary, additional or contradictory and may lead for example to an operator having to install several, different processing lines in order to be able to comply with these various conditions.
Content
Farmers incur costs and have to make investments in order to comply with EU marketing standards. An example for compliance costs concerns the costs associated with sizing and grading of products. This is done via the use of grading machines (representing an investment) that require an operator (personnel costs). According to a 2003 study,
14 the
average costs of preparation for the market, including sorting, packing, labelling and quality control is estimated to be 26% of annual sales. That same study estimates that the costs to businesses of rejection/downgrading of produce due to produce not meeting the requirements of the official marketing standards is less than 1% of sales. Even in the absence of obligatory marketing standards, farmers and packers will choose to grade their products if and as required by the market.
What's more, mandatory changes in policy can also lead to additional costs for farmers/operators as the changes may require for example the design and printing of a new label.
In most Member States, inspection is free-of-charge for operators, where the cost is covered for by the administration at national level (UK, FR) or regional level (ES). Globally, in the case of fruit and vegetables and eggs in the UK (ADAS evaluation study), the total inspection costs is estimated to represent around 0.1% of the total turnover of the sectors concerned.
Farmers and packers incur costs for respecting standards, cooperating with inspections (administrative burden). In some Member States, they contribute directly to the costs of controls, when these are carried out on demand. Such is the case in the Netherlands for example, where costs associated with inspections on imported/exported products are charged to the operator.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
2.3.2. Food processors and retailers
Process
Food processors and retailers in most cases require their supplies to comply with standards which go beyond the requirements laid down in marketing standards or, in other cases, these private standards function as complementary conditions. Official marketing standards may form the basis of private requirements. For enterprises without sufficient reach to impose their private standards, recourse to EU-level and indeed global standards, should facilitate trade.
With regard to retailers, the ADAS study states:
The EU standards were acknowledged by all large retailers as having played a significant role in improving the quality of produce on the UK marketplace in the past. The standards formed part of the basis for development of all of the major retailer's own product specifications, which now cover supply to these outlets. However, while the largely cosmetic quality criteria covered by the standards remains important, the retailer specifications also include a wide range of other quality and presentational criteria which are not included in the EU Standards, e.g. taste, texture, shelf life, specific packaging requirements and so on.
All of the representatives of the national multiples stated that the EU Standards do not add anything to their own specifications, having no impact on quality, availability, range or price of produce on offer. They did not believe that they would encounter any problems in quality should the Standards be withdrawn immediately, even for imported product. This is a result of the direct supply arrangements which are in place even for relatively minor lines.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
The Standards are now seen as one of the least important factors in maintaining and improving fresh product quality, lagging well behind consumer demand, retailer specifications, food safety legislation and production industry codes of practice.
Abolition of the Standards would have no impact on the quality or availability of product in the multiples and, following a potential small cost to write or rewrite some of their crop specifications, the only financial impact on the retailers would be a small positive one due to reduced loss of staff time.
Content
Costs for verifying compliance with marketing standards is associated with value of production. To illustrate, in the honey sector these costs may amount to around 40 per metric ton.
Stakeholders say:
the current legislative approach is appropriate
2.3.3. Consumers
Process
In the present situation, marketing standards may deny consumers the opportunity to purchase products that are sound and safe but do not meet the requirements laid down in marketing standards. For example, it was until recently difficult for consumers to purchase cooking-grade fruit on the retail market.
The above not only applies to blemished or odd-looking products, but also to innovative products. Marketing standards will limit the range of products consumers can choose from.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Stakeholders say:
From the consumers' point of view, uniform EU legislation is advantageous.
Il y a déjà trop d'information sur l'étiquetage des produits.
2.3.4. Public authorities
Process
Public authorities are first of all concerned as marketing standards are laid down by the legislator. In addition, there are several international intergovernmental forums where marketing standards are discussed and where the EU and/or the Member States are represented (in particular Codex Alimentarius, but also for specific commodities UNECE, OECD, OIV, IOC, etc...).
Content
Secondly, the enforcement and control on the respecting of marketing standards is a role mainly carried out by public authorities, which have to allocate, at national and/or regional level, the necessary resources for this task. To illustrate, in England and Wales a staff of approximately 93 is engaged in the development and enforcement of standards in the horticultural sector, which costs about GBP 3.2 million per year
16.
Stakeholders say:
Public controls are often bureaucratic and take a lot of time.
A simple and effective inspection system is necessary
Marketing standards can be controlled by private parties under supervision of the
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
2.5. Does the EU have the right to act?
Marketing standards are currently laid down within the framework of the Common Organisation of the Market for a good number of products by the EU. In order to change or continue the existing situation the EU should take action or decide to refrain from taking action.
The Treaty foresees that a common organisation of the market in agricultural products shall be established in order to attain the objectives set out in Article 33.
A(ii) 3. OBJECTIVES
3.1. General objective
To improve the functioning of the market in agricultural products17;
To find an appropriate and clear (set of) instrument(s) that will enable setting the conditions for a smooth disposal of agricultural products. This/these instrument(s) should create a common language for market partners; ensure a clear mutual understanding between buyer and seller. Moreover, the (set of) instrument(s) should enable the producer to receive a reward for adding value to a product and provide accurate information to the consumer. At the same time this (set of) instrument(s) should be clear and simple and reduce burdens to farmers whilst not hindering the placing on the market of sound and safe products.
3.2. Specific objective
Building further on the distinction between process (development of marketing standards) and the content of marketing standards.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
A(ii) 4. POLICY OPTIONS
The policy options presented below are divided in two different types. The first type of options concern the process, the way marketing standards are developed. Options one to seven fall into this first process-category.
The second type of policy option concerns the content of marketing standards. In this case, option 8, which is the policy option on reserved terms.
The policy options in the process category are considered as mutually exclusive. It is however possible to apply option 9 on reserved terms in combination with one or more process policy options.
4.1. No EU Action
Taking no EU action with regard to marketing standards actually means a complete removal of marketing standards from Community legislation and all the tasks associated with the implementation and enforcement of the EU marketing standards.
Consequently, the basis on which the sale of sound and safe products may have been prohibited will no longer apply. Moreover, the regulatory environment on standards and product requirements will become less complex.
Without EU marketing standards, public terms of reference disappear at an EU level. In practical terms, traders may make reference to internationally agreed standards in the absence of EU standards.
In the absence of community marketing standards, it is not excluded that Member States develop national, divergent marketing standards. This would have substantial negative effects on the functioning of the internal market.
Another consequence is that the already existing private requirements will take over the role of EU public marketing standards. This is certainly the case in markets where a substantial volume of produce is sold via retailers.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
methods of analysis determining the composition of products shall be those recommended by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV).
In a sector without public EU standards, the potato sector, international UN/ECE quality standards for early and ware potatoes are used as a guideline for minimal standards for early and ware potatoes by the potato trade. Referring to international standards in Community legislation has as an advantage that these standards are widely agreed, also with third country trading partners.
A drawback of making reference to internationally agreed standards is that these standards are available in the languages in which they have been adopted (English, French and Russian, in the case of UN/ECE standards) and not all Community languages. This may place certain farmers, traders and operators in a disadvantaged position.
Also, developing discussing and deciding upon standards at an international level requires participation and allocation of staff resources of the associated members.
Finally, on an international level, with a large number of participants, covering a large market with possibly a wide variety of product characteristics and market developments, finding common ground and agreement on standards may be a time consuming process.
Stakeholders say:
Making direct reference to international standards would facilitate international
harmonisation and reduce emergence of 3rd countries standards, however they may be
too general and not address regional specificities.
Codex and UNECE could be relevant even if Codex can be very bureaucratic and
favour imports and not exports.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Stakeholders say:
Maintaining the current status is the optimal solution.
We only agree with the current legislative approach.
Keep current approach for the benefit of both producers and consumers. Stakeholders
should be more involved in the decision making process.
4.3.2. Simplification
Simplification of marketing standards means a harmonisation of standards where possible. When simplifying marketing standards, elements that are shared by some marketing standards can be harmonised, obsolete provisions may be removed and the legal act(s) will be drafted in line with the latest legal drafting principles; all with a view to simplify and render the legal framework more transparent.
In this option, neither the process nor the content related difficulties will be substantially addressed. Simplification allows primarily for a more transparent and coherent legal framework.
Derived from that, whilst harmonising the policy framework, it is not excluded that beneficial changes may be made for example with regard to control arrangements, which could result in a reduction in burden associated with them, both for controlling authorities, as well as for farmers and operators.
Stakeholders say:
La recherché d'une simplification et d'un allégement des mécanismes ne doivent pas
être le prétexte d'une dérégulation qui déstabiliserait les marches.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
legislation and any sanctions are set out. The legislative authority also determines to what extent defining and implementing the measures can be left to the concerned parties Such provisions, for example sectoral agreements, must be compatible with Community law and must be in the interests of the public.
Co-regulation must be transparent. Members of the public must have access to the act and to the implementing provisions. Sectoral agreements and means of implementation must be made public in accordance with arrangements that have yet to be defined. The parties concerned must be considered to be representative, organised and responsible by the Commission, Council and European Parliament and must be recognised in the field.
Co-regulation combines the advantages of the binding nature of legislation with a flexible self-regulatory approach to implementation that encourages innovation and draws on the experience of the parties concerned. A drawback is the need to set up monitoring arrangements.
Co-regulation shares the advantage with self-regulation that policy is made, implemented by practitioners close to what is actually happening in the market. The procedures for drafting standards can be simpler and allow more flexibility and faster adjustment in a dynamic market environment.
Co-regulation is associated with costs for stakeholders as they are involved in drafting the legal framework.
In addition, when applying co-regulation, a certain level of organisation of the sector is required. In case the sector has a high level of fragmentation, co-regulation may be difficult to achieve. At best it is an incentive to develop certain structures and ways of cooperation by the sector.
In practical terms, co-regulation seems to have found limited use and a "tension" with competition policy exists
18 as "such arrangements can only be effective if the sector
concerned is more or less covered by a small number of identifiable actors who can represent the sector vis-à-vis the authorities and ensure implementation of the agreements".
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
4.5. Self-regulation
The operators in the sector concerned can be entrusted to lay down and monitor marketing standards, including product identities, product classifications and reserved terms. Where international standards exist, these can simply be used by producers and traders in commercial transactions.
Traders and business people in a particular sector can take the initiative themselves to develop reference standards or codes of practice. This process is known as self- regulation. Self-regulation does not involve a legislative act.
The ability to use self-regulation largely depends on the existence of bodies and processes to support self-regulation, including the building up of consensus amongst market players on the contents and the monitoring of enforcement.
Self-regulation may provide greater speed, responsiveness and flexibility as it can be established and altered more quickly than legislation. It may therefore be preferable in markets that are changing rapidly.
Self-regulation needs to be an open and transparent process as it may provide an opportunity for collusive arrangements amongst rivals. In some cases however self- regulation may prepare the ground for industries to abstain from competing and to coordinate their actions to fence off competition by newcomers to the disadvantage of consumers. This could also be true for liberal professions characterised by a high level of self-regulation by professional bodies. Price fixing, recommended prices, advertising regulations, entry requirements, reserved rights and rules governing business structure and multi-disciplinary practices enacted by such bodies may indeed be restrictive and harmful for consumers.
19
Costs for public enforcement are low, as any disputes are resolved between the parties concerned, e.g. by arbitration. Self-regulation has the advantage that policy is made, implemented and enforced by practitioners close to what is actually happening in the market. The procedures for drafting standards can be simpler and allow more flexibility and faster adjustment in a dynamic market environment. At the same time, the technical regulations are only applicable to those businesses that have undertaken to respect them (also referred to as "inter pares" arrangements, or arrangements between signatory parties).
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Stakeholders say:
Self-regulation is drafted by all economic actors in the food chain in an equitable and
transparent way. Implementation and control of marketing standards through self regulation should be adequate, comparable and compatible with EU legislation. Self- regulation would be preferable to legal norms.
Self-regulation should only be attempted by properly constituted representative bodies.
It could be allowed only on a case by case basis, for example only in the case of direct
sales by farmers to consumers.
It would add costs to enterprises.
It could be only for additional requirements, for very specific products or in areas not
regulated by the EU or by international standards.
Few actors would be involved and as the power in the food chain is not balanced
enough due to conflicting interests, the strongest actor of the food chain would impose its rules to the other actors.
4.6. Replacement of product specific EU marketing standards, by a general base
standard
This policy option foresees the replacement of all specific EU marketing standards by a general base standard.
It would mean a complete removal of specific marketing standards from Community legislation, as has been done for 26 marketing standards in the fruit and vegetables sector.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
the elements listed above including quality classification and sizing) are considered to be in compliance with the general base standard.
The number of requirements faced by farmers and operators will be reduced as a result of the abolition of product specific EU marketing standards.
In this option it is likely that compliance costs for operators will be reduced. It will also reduce control costs, as controls will only address the base standard and not the detailed requirements laid down in product specific marketing standards.
The absence of specific public standards will not automatically mean that there are no standards at all. The standards and requirements presently in use by the private sector will continue to exist or be further developed, and they will continue to be able to refer to the international standards and apply them on a voluntary basis.
Stakeholders say:
Minimum marketing standards must be set at EU level.
Recent reform of fruit and vegetable standards is a good example.
If there is compliance with common, general standards of hygiene and product safety,
the marketing standards can be left to self-regulation.
4.7. Combined approach
Under the New Approach to the regulation of standards for non-agricultural products, voluntary standards have proved to be efficient to ensure the free circulation of products in the Single Market, whilst providing a level playing field for interoperability, safety, security, environmental protection and quality. The basis of the New Approach is to place the essential requirements or base standard in legislation (as in Option 4.6) and technical specification in standards agreed by industry using self-regulation (Option 4.5) or co- regulation (Option 4.4).
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Coordination with international standardisation: Provided the technical standard-
setting bodies have the capacity, they can develop relations with international standard setting bodies, such as UN/ECE and ISO, promoting the development of common standards at European and international level ;
Commitment: since standards are developed by stakeholders, i.e by those operators
who will implement those standards,
Transparency: as all stakeholders have a say in the standards development process,
either during discussions in committees or during public enquiries performed in all Member States on each single draft standard;
Consistency: as each European standard, whilst remaining voluntary, must be
implemented as a national standard in all EU and EFTA countries, and any conflicting national standard shall be withdrawn;
Availability: as all standards are available in each national standards body, in the
national language;
Consensus: all standards are developed by consensus of all parties involved. The
stronger the consensus is, the wider the application of the standard by market players can be ensured.
The viability of the system on the model of CEN would depend on the participation in standards setting. Existing structures ensure that all stakeholders are consulted on every proposal and not only those represented on the national standards setting organizations.
In addition particular attention is paid to the consultation in sectors where there are many SMEs. Costs of standards development, however, are paid for by stakeholders.
Standards may be revised as often as necessary, and a review takes place at the latest every 5 years. Workshop agreements, for example, can be reached in 6 to 12 months. Self- regulation through European standards makes it impossible for some stakeholders to fence off competition, as consumer organisations are part of the standards development process. Free-riders do not get a chance to succeed, as they cannot claim compliance to a European standard. European Standards are based on a large and strong consensus of stakeholders, which is a robust guarantee for a wide application.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
4.8. Reserved terms
This option concerns the laying down of optional, clear, unambiguous definitions, identities, standards and classes, which have to be respected if referred to at the stage of placing on the market. This could apply in a vertical, product-specific manner, but also in a horizontal, general way to several products.
Reserved terms tell buyers that the product on which the reserved term is used corresponds to an identity, a defined farming method or a product characteristic. They are intended to provide the consumer with useful, accurate, technical information and help farmers to secure an additional financial return for additional production efforts.
Reserved terms may apply to a specific product, vertically, such as for eggs, but may also be applied across products, horizontally, such as "mountain", indicating that the product was produced in a mountainous region.
When deciding to make use of reserved terms, a producer voluntarily accepts the requirements of that term and commits to placing a product on the market which meets the terms of reference that correspond to the reserved terms.
A buyer or consumer can then rely on the fact that the product corresponds to these requirements and may expect a consistent quality of such a product, corresponding to the buyer's or consumer's expectations.
In this option it is foreseen that reserved terms, horizontal and vertical, are laid down by the legislator, when relevant and with an obvious and pressing need for such terms.
To illustrate, in the Unites States, quality standards are applied as voluntary tools20:
Agricultural Marketing Service's quality grade standards, grading, certification, auditing, inspection, and laboratory analysis are voluntary tools that industry can use to help promote and communicate quality and wholesomeness to consumers. Industry pays for these services and since they are voluntary, their widespread use by industry indicates they are valuable tools in helping market their products.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
When a product is placed on the retail market, using a reserved term voluntarily, such term should not mislead the consumer.
Stakeholders say:
The sector would not communicate on negative aspects.
Farmers to be given more freedom to classify their products to avoid industrialisation.
It would be possible as soon as the rules are decided at EU level and uniformly
applied.
Producers will be weakened vis-à-vis retailers.
It should however not mislead consumers.
4.9. Fine-tuned shortlist for further analysis
Technical screening
The first option described above, no EU action and complete removal of marketing standards from Community legislation, does not seem an appropriate way forward. As it leaves "the field unoccupied" it is possible that divergent, national marketing standards may be introduced. Such could have serious and negative consequences for the functioning of the internal market and the smooth disposal of agricultural goods on the market. For this reason, option 4.1 will not be assessed further.
The option on international standards whereby Community legislation would make direct reference to internationally agreed standards does not seem feasible as a legally enforced instrument. First it may take too long to update standards. Secondly, as international standards are available in only a few languages, EU operators may have the disadvantage of not being able to access the standards in their own language. However, the use of international standards as an optional reference for traders in the marketplace remains always possible.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
representative level is required. However, they will be retained in consideration of the combined approach, based in part on the New Approach, that is a legislated general base standard and technical standards set by a new body which can determine EU technical standards by reference to international standards or by self regulation.
Shortlist
From the policy options listed above, the following options will be taken forward and impacts will be evaluated.
Option 4.3.2: Status quo simplification;
-
Option 4.6: Replacement of specific EU marketing standards, by a general base standard;
-
Option 4.7: Combined approach;
Option 4.8: Reserved terms.
Options 4.1, no EU action, 4.2 international standards, 4.3.1 status quo, 4.4 on co- regulation and 4.5 on self- regulation will not be taken into consideration for further assessment.
A(ii) 5. IMPACT OF OPTIONS
Options concerning marketing standards: impacts on:
Flexible employment of marketing standards;
-
Speed up the process of establishing standards;
-
Simplify the functioning of EU marketing standards;
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
5.1.1. Impact matrix
Herewith an assessment of impacts compared to status quo/no change at all.
-
1)Simplification2) Replacing specific standards by general standard 3) Combined approach 4) Reserved terms
Flexibility / ++ + ++
Speed up process / / +/- +/-
Simplify + ++ + +/-
Reduce admin burden / ++ + ++
Minimum quality level / / / N.A.
Stable set / + + ++
Reduction of control burden / ++ + ++
Return on added value / -- + ++
5.1.2. Simplification
The prime advantage of the option simplification is an improvement of the regulatory framework, with a view to making it more transparent, easier to work with and harmonised.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
5.1.4. Combined approach
Advantage of the combined approach is that it allows for involving all stakeholders in the establishment of standards, with their experience, being close to the market, and provides the possibility of aligning to international standards.
Drawbacks of the combined approach may be found in a high degree of fragmentation of the farming sector, with approximately 14.5 million farmers, not to mention processors and retailers and the fact that the terms of reference of a standard have to be acquired.
5.1.5. Reserved terms
Advantages of reserved terms are first of all that use, employment of reserved terms is optional. The flexibility is offered to farmers to decide if they would like to make use of them. Farmers no longer have to make efforts, investments to comply with certain requirements unless they decide otherwise. This optional employment of terms can also lead to a (substantial) reduction in administrative burden to farmers. In addition, the use of reserved terms is an effective tool for farmers to communicate about the value they have added to products and ensure a reward for those additional efforts.
A drawback of the use of reserved terms may be that they are laid down by the public legislator, which may take long. Moreover, operators will not employ reserved terms for negative aspects.
A(ii) 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Combined approach The combined approach rests on the voluntary nature of the marketing standards (beyond matters set in the baseline legislation). It provides a mechanism to develop trading rules and standards that the stakeholders can agree and has been shown to work in non-agricultural sectors. It
is compatible with continued fruitful development of international standards, which is important for the international aspect. - articulation with the GFL structure needs to be assured
-
-the farming sector may simply be too fragmented to be able to staff the technical committees;
-
-other attempts to find industry agreement on technical issues in the agriculture sector have shown that consensus can
be difficult.
Reserved terms Its optional or voluntary character, as farmers can pick and choose from the "reserved terms" menu; they will have more flexibility in their operations. It provides a tool to farmers to obtain a reward for adding value to a product. Reserved terms are laid down by the legislator, which is a process that may take some time.
Operators will not communicate on negative aspects.
Comparison of retained options by effectiveness, efficiency and consistency
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
6.1.1. Identification of impacts
6.1.1.1. Simplification
Economic impacts:
-
a.Functioning of the internal market and competition: Hardly any impact
is expected.
-
b.Competitiveness, trade and investment flows: Hardly any impact is
expected.
-
c.Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises: Hardly any impact is
expected.
-
d.Operating costs and conduct of business: Hardly any impact is
expected.
-
e.Administrative burdens on businesses: Hardly any impact is expected.
-
f.Consumers and households: Hardly any impact is expected.
-
g.Third countries and international relations: Hardly any impact is
expected.
-
h.Public authorities: Hardly any impact is expected
Social impacts:
Transparency: As a result of simplifying the regulatory framework, the EU
legal provisions on marketing standards will become clearer and more transparent.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Qualitative assessment of impacts that are most significant
Impacts deemed to be most significant are:
· A simplification of the legal framework related to marketing
standards.
6.1.1.2. Replacing specific standards by a general base standard
Economic impacts:
-
a.Functioning of the internal market and competition: The option will have a positive impact. It will first of all do away with the ban on placing of the market of ugly or innovative products. Secondly, it may lead to a reduction in compliance costs as well as a reduction in burden associated with controls.
-
b.Competitiveness, trade and investment flows: This option will have a positive impact on innovation, it may increase consumer choice and reduce costs to enterprises.
-
c.Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises: For especially small and medium enterprises, a reduction in compliance costs/administrative burden will have a positive impact on their daily running of the business.
-
d.Operating costs and conduct of business: Businesses will have more autonomy on how to market their products and the compliance costs currently associated with preparing products for placement of the market will reduce. Moreover, costs associated with letting comestible produce that does not correspond to marketing standards go to waste will no longer exist.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
-
g.Third countries and international relations: Hardly any impact is expected
-
h.Public authorities: The impact of this option on public authorities consists first of all out of a reduced inspection activity. Secondly, a general base standard will not require updating or modifying as frequently as detailed, specific marketing standards do.
Social impacts:
Transparency: This option will increase transparency as it is replaces
detailed, specific standards by a single, general base standard.
Participation of stakeholders in scheme development and implementation:
Hardly any impact is expected
Contribution to EU development policy: Not much of an impact is
expected, although it is not excluded that some of the benefits obtained by this option, in particular the sale of ugly or odd looking produce may have somewhat of a positive impact for suppliers from developing countries, but may be limited by the perishing of produce.
Environmental impacts: Hardly any impact is expected
Qualitative assessment of impacts that are most significant
Impacts deemed to be most significant are:
· Products will no longer be banned from placing on the market,
as long as they are sound, fair and marketable.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
have increased flexibility in how to market their products, choosing the option that best fits their operations from a cost-benefit point of view.
-
b.Competitiveness, trade and investment flows: This option will have a positive impact on innovation, it may increase consumer choice and reduce costs to enterprises.
-
c.Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises: For especially small and medium enterprises, a reduction in compliance costs/administrative burden will have a positive impact.
-
d.Operating costs and conduct of business: A benefit of this option is that standards developed under the new approach are optional. Farmers, operators decide for themselves, in negotiations with their buyers, which terms to use, depending on the costs and benefits the use of one or several terms may generate. In addition, a farmer or operator wanting to use a standard has an additional cost as the terms of reference of this standard need to be purchased.
-
e.Administrative burdens on businesses: The level of burden on business
depends on the choices made by farmers and operators. Moreover, they may have a burden; spending time and resources for the development of marketing standards.
-
f.Consumers and households: In this option, consumers are involved in the setting of standards. Moreover, consumers and households may benefit from this option as it is a flexible scheme, it may lead to products being supplied against lower prices. On the other hand, consumers benefit from the use of a clearly defined set of terms, which provides transparency and confidence in products marketed by the use of reserved terms.
-
g.Third countries and international relations: third country traders may not be involved in the setting of standards, but may very well employ and benefit from these standards when placing products on the European market. Moreover, from an international perspective, it would be possible to translate/implement international standards.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Contribution to EU development policy: Not much of an impact is
expected, although it is not excluded that some of the benefits obtained by this option may have somewhat of a positive impact for suppliers from developing countries.
Environmental impacts: Not much of an impact is expected. It is not
excluded that if the use of a reserved term for example with regard to environmentally friendly production method turns out to be beneficial to a farmer or operator, the employment of such a term will increase and the environment may benefit from such an increase.
Qualitative assessment of impacts that are most significant
Impacts deemed to be most significant are:
· Flexibility of employment of marketing standards. Farmers and operators have a
choice on employing standards, taking into account the costs and benefits associated with the use or reserved terms;
· Stakeholders are involved in the setting of standards
· A reduction in the control tasks of public authorities
6.1.1.4. Reserved terms
Economic impacts:
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
-
e.Administrative burdens on businesses: The burden level associated with this option is entirely dependent on the choices made by the farmer operator.
-
f.Consumers and households: Consumers and households may benefit
from this option as it is a flexible scheme, it may lead to products being supplied against lower prices. On the other hand, consumers benefit from the use of a clearly defined set of terms, which provides transparency and confidence in products marketed by the use of reserved terms.
-
g.Third countries and international relations: Suppliers of agricultural products may benefit from this option as much as domestic operators do.
-
h.Public authorities: Public authorities will continue laying down definitions, identities, standards and classes. A possible impact may be seen in the number of reserved terms to will be developed. Secondly, as far as controls are concerned, it is expected that the workload will be reduced.
Social impacts:
Transparency: The option of reserved terms allows for communicating
certain characteristics of products. Conditions, terms of reference for reserved terms are clearly defined and as such, consumer are well informed about what to expect from a product for which a reserved term is used. Moreover, especially horizontal reserved terms may prevent confusion about certain claims and terminology.
Participation of stakeholders in scheme development and implementation:
Hardly any impact is expected
Contribution to EU development policy: Not much of an impact is
expected, although it is not excluded that some of the benefits obtained by this option may have somewhat of a positive impact for suppliers from developing countries.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Qualitative assessment of impacts that are most significant
Impacts deemed to be most significant are:
· Flexibility of employment of marketing standards. Farmers and
operators have a choice on employing standards, taking into account the costs and benefits associated with the use or reserved terms.
· Reserved terms are a tool for obtaining a reward for adding
value.
· A reduction of control tasks for public authorities.
A(ii) 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
A further ex ante evaluation is foreseen in the form of a more detailed impact assessment which will accompany any relevant legislative proposals.
The evaluation will primarily focus on the issues listed above, in particular a flexible employment of marketing standards as well as reducing administrative burden to farmers and operators and providing farmers with a tool to obtain rewards for creating added value.
Once policy changes are implemented, regular monitoring may take place. These monitoring activities could relate to an ex post evaluation with regard to a reduction in administrative burden as well as to the disposable income of farmers and their rewards received for adding value to agricultural products.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Annex I: Overview of marketing standards and their legal bases
Beef labelling
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Community legislation
-
1.Consumer confidence Regulation (EC) N° 1760/2000 from the European Parliament and the Council, Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1825/2000 (implementing rules)
Cocoa and chocolate products
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Definition of what are chocolate and other cocoa products including rules on the process (authorised ingredients, in particular vegetable fats) Council Directive 2000/36/EC
-
2.Information to consumer through labelling based on definitions and rules defined above
Coffee extracts and chicory extracts
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Definition of what are coffee extracts and chicory extracts Council Directive 1999/4/EC
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Fresh (and processed) fruit and vegetables
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
· Definition of product (base-line) by reference to a botanical classification (latin name) - minimum quality requirements (products are sound, clean, loyal, etc...). In some cases, this includes physical or chemical minimum parameters (e.g. top define minimum maturity requirements) Norms are set at Community level; there may be in addition some remaining national standards (potatoes in several MS, some other products in some other MS, e.g. shallots in France, Chestnuts in Italy, etc...),. Following adoption of R 1182/2007, the fruit and vegetables marketing standards are currently under revision, with a view to reduce the number of products covered by a specific marketing standard.
· Labelling requirements providing information to consumers (Class, size, variety, origin, other particulars specific to one or the other fruit or vegetable ("pipless", date of harvest, etc...)
However, most of the norms are copies of international norms (UN/ECE).
Products list :
Fresh fruits: apples, pears, citrus fruit (except grapefruit),
, kiwis, peaches and nectarines,
strawberries, table grapes, bananas
Processed fruits : dried grapes
Fresh Vegetables : lettuce and other salads, sweet peppers, tomatoes, .
Legal base : R 1234/2007, with the exception of bananas (R. 404/1993)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007
Fruit juice
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Classification: definition of different types of
products: fruit juice, fruit juice from concentrate, nectars, etc... Norms set at Community level (Council Directive 2001/112/EC)
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Fruit jams, jellies and marmalades, chestnut puree
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Classification: definition of different types of
products: jam, extra jam, jelly, extra jelly, marmalade, jelly marmalade, sweetened chestnut purée. Norms set at Community level (Council Directive 2001/113/EC)
-
2.Minimum requirements for end-product
(authorised additional ingredients for all products covered (honey, fruit juice, pectins, citrus peel, etc...)) and for raw material ( treatment authorised for raw materials (freezing, heating, concentrating of raw material, additives,))
-
3.Information to the consumer - Labelling rules : type of product, sugar and/or fruit contents, other requirements (presence of sulphur dioxide)
Honey
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Definition of what is honey. In this way the standards protect the consumer. Council Directive 2001/110/EC
-
2.Establishment of the conditions of competition between honey and competing products, avoiding distortion (avoidance of "false honey" being offered
on the market)
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Milk: Drinking milk
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Consumer protection and information, avoiding false competition and maintaining the natural image of milk: by defining the characteristics of what is milk (protein content) and 3 specific kinds of fat
categories: whole milk, semi skimmed milk, skimmed milk. 1. Community legislation
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007)
Milk and milk products: preserved milk
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Definition of products and product names (e.g. condensed milk, milk powder) authorised treatments (e.g. protein standardisation) 1. Community legislation
Council Directive 2001/114/EC
Potection of the natural composition of these products in the interest of producers and consumers.
-
2.Establishes conditions of competition, avoiding distortion.
Milk and milk products protected designations
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Definition of what is milk, protection of the natural composition of milk products in the interest of producers and consumers 1. Community legislation
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007,
Commission Regulation (EC) 445/2007)
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Poultry
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Having fixed standards allows one to compare similar products. In this way it improves competition on the internal market. 1. Community legislation (Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1234/2007, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91),
-
*Règlement (CE) n° 2777/75 du
Conseil (OCM), Règlement (CE) n°2782/75 du Conseil (production et commercialisation)
-
2.Minimum quality criteria to protect consumers (eg. maximum water content)
.
-
3.Protect products which are sold with "mention valorisante" from standard production (e.g. free range)
-
4.Inform consumer about the origin
Spirit drinks
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Consumer and producer protection by definition of a list of types of spirits. Definition also covers production processes to be followed for most spirits. 1. Community legislation (Council Regulation (EEC)
No 110/2008; Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1014/90 on definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks
-
2.Consumer information through specific labelling requirements, compulsory (e.g. sales designation defined above,...) or voluntary (ageing, blending,...)
Spreadable fats (butter, margarine and blends)
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Standards create a level playing field for similar products. In this way it improves competition on the internal market. 1. Community legislation (Council Regulation (EC)
No 1234/2007, Commission Regulation (EC) 445/2007
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT QUALITY POLICY: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AEX A(II): MARKETI G STA DARDS
Sugar
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Definition of the product in the context of import quota management (raw sugar is recalculated into white sugar equivalents. 1. Community legislation (Council Regulation (EC)
No 1234/2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 952/2006).
-
2.Quality criteria for intervention.
-
3.Definitions by vertical directive of types of sugar (white, semi-white, extra-white, etc...) and rules on labelling of products named according these designations. Harmonised method of analysis for the determination of the colour of sugar. 2. Council Directive 2001/111/EC
-
3.Standards applied by the trade are not regulated.
-
4.The trade has other, more precise standards. The EU does not interfere.
Veal definition
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Provision of a clear description of the product for consumers Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the marketing of the meat of bovine animals aged 12 months or less.
-
2.Avoidance of a distortion of competition between producers using different definitions of veal..
Wine
Function of the standard Current way of regulating
-
1.Consumer protection: by defining what wine (and their different types) and wine products (vinegar etc...) are, including the authorised production processes. 1. Community legislation
Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (as of 1-8- 2009)
- 28 jan '09COM(2009)16 - Werkdocument van de Commissie - De administratieve lasten in de EU verlagen Bijlage bij de derde strategische evaluatie van betere regelgeving
- 4 jul '07COM(2007)372 - Gemeenschappelijke wijnmarktordening en tot wijziging van een aantal verordeningen
- 18 dec '06COM(2006)822 - Gemeenschappelijke landbouwmarktordening en specifieke bepalingen voor een aantal landbouwproducten
- 15 dec '05COM(2005)125 - Definitie, de aanduiding, de presentatie en de etikettering van gedistilleerde dranken
- 17 apr '96COM(1995)722 - Voor menselijke voeding bestemde cacao- en chocoladeprodukten
- 17 apr '96COM(1995)722 - Voor menselijke voeding bestemde vruchtensappen en bepaalde soortgelijke produkten
- 17 apr '96COM(1995)722 - Voor menselijke voeding bestemde vruchtenjam of -confituur, - gelei en -marmelade alsmede kastanjepasta
- 17 apr '96COM(1995)722 - Foodstuffs :honey
- 17 apr '96COM(1995)722 - Voor menselijke voeding bestemde, geheel of gedeeltelijk gedehydreerde verduurzaamde melk
- 17 apr '96COM(1995)722 - Voor menselijke voeding bestemde suikers
