Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.5.2-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I am very encouraged by all the contributions made on this very important issue. As I mentioned in my statement, I welcome the conclusion of the first phase agreement on trade in wine between the European Community and the United States.
On the question of mutual recognition, as I said in my introductory statement this agreement does not grant the United States mutual recognition of its wine-making practices. This was one of the key US objectives, just as the phasing-out of semi-generics was for us. However, since the US did not agree to phase out the use of the 17 EU semi-generic wine names used in the US, we did not agree to grant them mutual recognition of their wine-making practices.
As I said, we will only maintain the existing Community authorisations on United States wine-making practices. We will accept the other existing US wine-making practices only when the United States has changed the status of our semi-generics. That link has to be taken into consideration.
We will have the possibility, for new wine-making practices, to raise objections and hence not to accept new US wine-making practices. We will not simply accept all the practices used by the United States. However, various myths seem to abound. To take the example of oak chips, which have often been referred to, such chips are already permitted in the European Union on an experimental basis. Clearly, however, under the agreement, a wine will have to be aged in oak barrels before the term 'barrel-aged' could be used on the label. That goes without saying.
Finally, it is very important that discussions be opened on the reform of the common market organisation in wine. The impact assessment work has already started and consists amongst other things of an economic analysis of the sector, which should be completed by the end of the year. Later, the impact assessment report will cover several options and the effects of those options.
The Commission will involve all stakeholders within the sector in a public debate that will hopefully be held in February, before presenting a proposal. The Commission communication could be submitted by June next year, with a Commission legislative proposal being presented before the end of next year.
I should inform Mr Freitas that both madeira and port are on the list of the 17 wine names considered as semi-generic, and that the use of those names will therefore be restricted. He can be quite sure about that.
Finally, the whole issue of geographical indications is of huge importance to the Community and I have constantly made this clear to our trading partners in the WTO negotiations. Our intention has been to obtain a multilateral register, the extension of the existing higher level of protection afforded to wines and spirits to other products, and a clawing-back of certain names, the use of which has been abused world-wide. Some of our trading partners even consider that GIs are not an issue for negotiation. Something on GIs must come out of our final discussions in Hong Kong. It is such a vital issue for the agricultural sector.
I welcome the conclusion of this agreement on trade between the European Community – which, as many of you have mentioned, is the birthplace of wine – and one of the leading countries in the New World Wine Trade Group. I am convinced this development is positive not only for the Community and the United States, but also for the world at large. I am also convinced that the conclusion of this first phase agreement will pave the way for further discussions and cooperation with the United States in the wine sector, which is in the clear interest of the Community, and in particular its wine sector.
At the same time, I have taken note of all your remarks, which I will not underestimate. The negotiations for the second phase, which as I mentioned previously will begin within 90 days of the entry into force of the agreement, will allow us to act on many of the remarks made today. However, I also believe that most of your remarks go far beyond the conclusion of this first phase agreement and in a sense confirm that it is the right moment to start the analysis and discussions on reform of the wine sector.
I should now like to reply to some specific questions. Some of you seem to be of the opinion that this agreement is unbalanced and skewed in favour of United States stakeholders. Considering the economic pattern of the EC-US wine trade and the political and legal background, this first-phase agreement is not unbalanced. It improves our relations with our leading customer considerably and establishes a good basis for future discussions and negotiations.
Besides, several provisions of key interest to the United States, such as the approval of their existing wine-making practices not covered by current Community authorisations and much simplified certification requirements, will only kick in once the United States has notified the Community it has changed the status of the 17 famous European wine names that are semi-generics in the US.
There is the question of the protection afforded to European wine names being insufficient. The protection under this agreement is afforded through US labelling rules and guarantees that European wine names will only be used for European wines, notwithstanding a grandfathering clause on existing brand names. In addition, this agreement is without prejudice to our rights under TRIPs and does not affect our legislative framework for GIs.
On the most-favoured nation risks mentioned by several of you, I can state that the Commission's aim in these negotiations and those with other new wine-producing countries, is to improve the dialogue between us and our negotiating partners and avoid the trade conflicts and WTO panels that would be extremely costly for European producers.
The most favoured nation clause is well-known with regard to tariffs, but the situation is completely different when it comes to its application in relation to procedures for recognising wine-making practices. In order for the same concessions to be granted to another third country, that third country would have to be in a similar situation as regards acceptable wine-making practices and monitoring of those practices and of the wine. However, the United States system of administration for wine labels is unique. It is not used in other third countries and the most favoured nation risk therefore seems to be very small. That is an important point.
As regards the possibility of adding water, let me recall that this is permitted today in the European Union for reasons of technical necessity. We have no defined limits for the addition of water to wine, but, for example, a limit of 7% has been defined in respect of adding water to concentrated grapes, as it is impossible to detect the addition of water below that threshold. But make no mistake, we will not accept any undermining of the quality of EU products."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples