Projev komisařky Mariann Fischer Boel na konferenci k politice kvality
Projev je k dispozici pouze v angličtině. "Building on the habit of quality"
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, let me join Petr in welcoming all of you to this conference. And let me thank everyone involved in organising it – in this wonderful setting of Prague.
The Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality, which we're discussing today, was always about practical policy rather than philosophy.
Nevertheless, in this context I'm tempted to quote the great philosopher Aristotle, who once said: "Quality is not an act: it is a habit."
As we know, good habits take time to bear fruit. You don't become a god-like athlete after running one lap of the local park. But thankfully, the European agri-food sector has been in the habit of achieving high quality for a very long time indeed.
Centuries before there was any such thing as a "quality policy" (or even a European Union), farmers and food producers all over Europe were busy dreaming up new ways of tenderising their meat, blending their grapes or getting more flavour into their cheese.
This work of hundreds of years of creativity is one of the reasons why, today, Europe has the most fantastically diverse food tradition in the world – and why our agri-food exports bring in around € 70 billion a year.
The habit of quality is firmly anchored in our traditions. But we can't be complacent. In a globalised market full of low-cost competition, we have to build on that habit of quality, not sit back comfortably in our chair.
Policy can helps us to do that - and of course, this is what the Green Paper is all about.
The level of response to the Green Paper was excellent. We received 560 contributions. These came mainly from parties in the European Union, but I'm quite pleased that the Paper also created a stir in Argentina, Australia, Norway, Switzerland and the US!
Sorting through the contributions has been an enormous task, so my thanks go to those of my staff who have given up their hobbies and their sleep over the last few weeks to get it done.
The responses to the Green Paper make it clear that our quality policy is many different things to different people.
I see it as being like a huge garden – perhaps in the grounds of a magnificent Czech castle. Many kinds of plants and features have been added at different times. Some parts of it receive lots of visitors, others just a few.
The Green Paper has confirmed my view that there's a lot of good soil and good growth in this garden, so there's no question of digging up the whole thing and starting again.
On the other hand, it is time for some enthusiastic and skilled gardening work! Some plants have grown rather wild and need a bit of pruning. Others need some tender loving care. The time may also be right for a few new plants – but in this case we must be careful about how we introduce them.
Overall, it's clear that we can improve some of the individual sections of the garden and bring a greater sense of overall shape and colour.
Well, it's nice to think about gardens, but now I should probably be a bit more specific about the impact assessment which the Commission has put together. I don't want to be exhaustive, but I'll outline some key points.
First of all, let's think about farming requirements.
When you responded to the Green Paper, many of you said that we should keep our current approach to marketing standards. You don't want to give up all European Union marketing standards and move to co-regulation or simply refer to international standards.
On the other hand, you said we should simplify this system.
Well, you know that I'm a fan of keeping things simple, so I take this point seriously. It's clear that some European Union marketing standards are here to stay: we need them. But others are less necessary, so I think there's scope to trim the number – and this will be easier now that we have a Single Common Market Organisation.
You also had a lot to say about certain reserved terms like "mountain" and "low-carbon".
You thought that these terms are potentially very useful but that we should make their meaning clearer. I agree. Let's unlock that potential – with European-level definitions for some of them, if necessary.
Obviously, we've received plenty of comments about our traditional European Union quality schemes – Protected Designations of Origin, Protected Geographical Indications, and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed.
I often emphasise that these are not the only tools in our quality policy. But they're obviously very important, and I back them 100 per cent.
I would like to see a greater use of these schemes in northern Europe. And we've been working hard to accelerate the registration process. This used to take 3 to 4 years. Now it takes about 12 months, and we want to bring that figure down further. But please: this is not only up to the Commission - Member States must do their job properly too! If an application comes to the Commission without having been properly checked by the national authority, then this will slow down the whole process: that's a fact of life. Let's work together to speed things up.
I have to say that there's one European scheme which does not have many friends: Traditional Specialities Guaranteed. It's a striking fact that we've had just 20 registrations in 15 years. By contrast, Italy's national system for recognising "traditional" names covers some 4000 products!
These facts speak for themselves. It would be easy to end the TSG system and use other means to distinguish the products which it currently covers. And I think we should do this.
At the same time, of course we've been giving thought to possible new European-level schemes.
Let's be clear that new schemes are on their way in any case – for example, the planned animal welfare label and the "ecolabel".
Some respondents to the Green Paper were anxious about the possible impact of new schemes like these. And certainly, I agree that we must shape new schemes to make them "farmer-friendly" and more "consumer-friendly".
There are arguments in favour of labelling products whose negative impact has been minimised (for example in terms of carbon emissions). But as far as possible, I want to get across some more positive messages too. Farming is often a unique friend to the environment to which is works. We have so many valued landscapes which would simply vanish from the map in a few months if the local farmers gave up. Consumers need to know this – and our quality policy should take that need into account.
Finally, what about other certification schemes – I mean those which are not run by the European Union?
These are a large and growing part of the policy "garden" to which I referred earlier: they cover a vast number of European food products.
We should keep this part of the garden and let it flourish! But the gardeners should also give the plants some gentle guidance. It's a fact that some schemes are much clearer than others – and labels must above all be clear, otherwise they're worthless (and possibly misleading).
Most respondents to the Green Paper wanted to see a firm touch but a light touch from European authorities in this area.
There's a view that, if the Commission gave practical guidelines about what makes a good scheme, a greater proportion of national, regional and private schemes would be clear and helpful to the consumer. This is especially relevant to "baseline" schemes – in other words, schemes which simply certify that a given product meets all the relevant legal requirements. Guidelines could also encourage a greater involvement of farmers in the creation of new schemes.
I agree with this view. I don't want to be an "aggressive" gardener, but I do want to give a helping hand. I think guidelines could well be a good way forward.
As you can see, ideas are forming in my mind, but the door certainly isn't closed to further ideas and comments.
This conference is the last major landmark in the consultation process before the Commission adopts its Communication in May. So make the most of it – while you're sampling your organic Czech food today.
Come back to me with some useful reflections. You don't have to express them as elegantly as Aristotle would have done. But if they could help us to build that "habit" of quality for the sake of a competitive European agri-food sector, they'll be welcome.
Thank you.
Datum aktualizace: 16.8.2011 15:42
