VZCZCXRO0645
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHFR #0011/01 0061620
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 061620Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5194
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAUSA/HHS WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2979
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000011 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; 
USDA/FAS FOR OA/YOST/JACKSON/ROSADO; 
OCRA/HALE/NENON; 
ONA/RIEMENSCHNEIDER/YOUNG/DENNIS; 
OFSO/YOUNG; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR SENV ECON ETRD EU FR
 
SUBJECT: The French EU Presidency on Agriculture - A Retrospective 
 
REF: 2008 PARIS 1240 
 
Introduction and Summary 
 
¶1.  The French EU Presidency advanced a number of ambitious goals 
regarding agriculture and biotechnology. Final results, while 
falling short of these goals, increased attention on societal 
preferences and the legitimacy of establishing biotech-free zones. 
The recently completed "Health Check" reform of the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) allows Member State (MS) governments more 
latitude in allocating agricultural subsidies and preserves a number 
of market management tools, even though many are unlikely to be used 
in the short term.  The French EU Presidency had hoped to secure a 
joint commitment on the long term objectives of the CAP, but failed 
to get unanimous support and France's initiative to gain legitimacy 
for the consideration of so-called societal preferences in dealing 
with imports likewise failed to get full Ag Council support. 
 
¶2.  On biotechnology, the Council of Environmental Ministers 
unanimously adopted a document that lays the groundwork for 
broadening biotech reviews in terms of increased MS involvement in 
assessment and monitoring, and for eliciting input from a wider 
range of scientists and other stakeholders.  The Council also urged 
the Commission to establish an adventitious presence threshold for 
seeds. While the societal preference issue failed to get traction in 
the Ag Council, the Environmental Council under the French 
Presidency adopted language encouraging MS to gather socio-economic 
data on biotechnology for further discussion.  End Summary. 
 
Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
 
¶3. The Agricultural Council of November 19 and 20 agreed to modest 
reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy known as the "Health 
Check" reform.  The package, which is less ambitious than the 
initial Commission proposal, was nonetheless hailed by French Ag 
Minister Michel Barnier as a positive achievement.  Barnier 
emphasized that the tools established by the Health Check reform 
allowed MS to allocate EU subsidies more equitably, particularly 
between crop and animal production. However, the reform is likely to 
drive a wedge between arable crop growers, who do not want to see 
their support lowered, especially a time of lower crop prices, and 
animal producers. 
 
Post 2013 CAP 
 
¶4.  France initiated a debate on the goals and the nature of the 
Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 at an informal Ag Ministerial 
in Annecy, France, in September and pursued the issue in the Ag 
Council. A revised text on the issue referred to the importance of 
the CAP Health Check emphasizing that any conclusion would not 
prejudice the future discussion of the EU budget post - 2013.  New 
references to environmental issues, innovation and the public goods 
delivered by agriculture were introduced. The Presidency had hoped 
to secure a joint commitment on the long term objectives of the CAP 
before talks on the post - 2013 budget begin.  (Note: EU budget 
discussions, which will start in 2010, are to be voted upon by 2012. 
End note.) The French document, which initially advocated strong 
farm and market support policies after 2013, did not get a unanimous 
vote from all 27 MS, with the UK, Latvia and Sweden opposing it, 
even after France agreed to remove the reference to Community 
Preference (code for increasing protectionism), farm market 
stabilization and farm income protection from the document.  Because 
of the lack of unanimity, the significantly diluted text became a 
simple Presidency Conclusion instead of a Council Conclusion. 
French officials believe the Czech Presidency will continue the 
discussion in 2009, albeit a slower pace, due to upcoming EU 
Parliamentary elections and the change of the Commission by November 
¶2009. 
 
Discussion on Imports 
 
¶5.  At the start of the French Presidency, Ag Minister Barnier 
presented the Agricultural Council a text on imports of agricultural 
and food products (REFTEL). The document contains three elements: 
the need for enforcing, through inspection, a strong sanitary and 
phytosanitary policy; the need for strong risk management for 
imports; and the need to implement societal criteria and collective 
preference in dealing with imports.  While the first two elements 
 
PARIS 00000011  002 OF 002 
 
 
were supported by all MS and were discussed in COREPER, the third 
element proved to be contentious.  The conclusion of the December 18 
and 19 Agricultural Council reaffirmed the EU strong commitment to 
the international trade regime.  It also invited the EU Commission 
to promote European standards and regulatory criteria within 
international standards organizations, to explore the impacts on EU 
trade of standards differences between the EU and its trade partners 
and to analyze, as a basis for further discussion, how international 
trade rules can interact with EU societal concerns.  The wording of 
this last sentence is not binding on the Commission. 
 
Biotechnology 
 
¶6.  One of the priorities of the French Presidency has been to 
harmonize and better coordinate the European system for reviewing 
biotech products among the MS.  At a December 4th EU Environment 
Council meeting, Ministers discussed biotech issues based on the 
work of an ad hoc working group created under the French Presidency. 
 The unanimously-adopted conclusions of this Ministerial recognize 
the importance of: 
 
a) Strengthening environmental assessment and monitoring 
arrangements: This proposal encourages several MS, rather than just 
one (as is current practice), to participate in biotech product 
pre-marketing reviews.  Impacts on non-target species, long-term 
effects and ecological impacts of Genetically-Engineered (GE) 
products in affected regions were identified as areas where more MS 
involvement is needed.  In addition, the Council emphasized the 
importance of unifying MS monitoring of GE crop production.  The EU 
Commission plans to implement an online monitoring system whereby MS 
and the Commission will share monitoring information. 
 
b) Appraising socio-economic benefits and risks: points out that the 
Commission is to submit a specific report on the implementation of 
Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment 
of GE products, including an assessment of the socio-economic 
implications, and invites MS to collect and exchange information on 
socio-economic implications by January 2010 with a view to the 
Commission submitting a report by June 2010 for further discussion 
in the Council and the Parliament. 
 
c) Making better use of expertise: encourages broader involvement in 
considering specific national or regional characteristics and a 
broadening of disciplines (e.g. ecology) in risk assessment. 
 
d) Adopting European labeling thresholds for seeds: reaffirms the 
need for labeling thresholds for the adventitious presence of 
authorized biotech products in conventional seeds, and invites the 
Commission to adopt appropriate thresholds as soon as possible. 
(Note: For the first time since 2006, the EU Council identified the 
EU labeling threshold for the adventitious presence of authorized 
biotech products in seeds as a priority. This issue has languished 
for years without a consensus between the Commission and MS. 
According to the French Ministry of Environment, the EU Commission 
will publish its threshold proposal in the next few months after it 
receives the results of an impact study.) 
 
e) Sensitive and/or protected areas: emphasizes the need to consider 
specific regional and local characteristics of value in terms of 
biodiversity. 
 
In addition, the Environmental Council underscored the legitimacy of 
establishing biotech-free zones based on the precautionary principle 
and freedom of choice. 
 
¶6. Comment: France can be expected to continue to pursue many of the 
above-detailed ideas, especially those related to legitimizing the 
consideration of societal preferences in trade-related decisions. 
Both December Ag and Environmental Council meetings adopted language 
that would allow the French to continue to press on this issue. End 
Comment.