Summary
While South African citrus exports to the EU increased in 2016, EU farmer’s organisations continue to push for stricter SPS controls on citrus imports, despite an earlier international consensus that for citrus black spot (CBS) infections, trade in fruit does not represent a route for disease transmission. EU citrus importers meanwhile argue SPS controls should not be excessive and should be commensurate with the risk.
In 2016 while total South African citrus exports were down 7.7%, exports to the EU grew 5.3%. This took the share of the EU/UK market in total South African citrus exports to 41.8%, up from 36.7% in 2015. (1) This expansion of South African citrus exports was in part linked to the derogation from strict CBS related SPS import controls for citrus fruit destined for the processing industry. (2)
The improved export performance on the EU/UK market is in sharp contrast to the doomsday scenario of market closure, which hung-over South African exporters in 2013, following the introduction of stricter EC SPS controls for citrus black spot fungal infections. Subsequent investments of over Rand 1 billion (€68 million) in CBS controls and enhanced surveillance systems, as well as a shift away from EU member states where excessive SPS controls for citrus black spot were applied (Spain), saw the number of infected consignments intercepted fall to 4 in 2016, down from 35 in 2013 and 15 in 2015. This contrasts with increased interceptions of CBS infected consignments from other third country suppliers to the EU. (1)
While increasingly complying with EU requirements, the South African citrus industry continues to insist EU SPS controls are not justified by the underlying science. It has been consistently argued that trade in citrus fruit does not constitute a route for disease transmission to EU citrus orchards. The EC for its part continues to call for further improvements in South African controls. Against this background the South African government continues to pursue a resolution of the underlying scientific issues through the WTO. (3)
Meanwhile European farmer organisations continue to push for stricter SPS controls, including stricter cold treatment protocols to guard against African coddling moth (ACM) infestations. Copa Cogeca argued ‘It is totally unacceptable that the EU Commission should attempt to weaken border controls on citrus fruit imports coming into the EU and destined for processing, as they do not take on board EFSAs’ recommendations on the risks to the EU’s citrus groves’. In addition with reference to African coddling moth infestation, Copa-Cogeca wants to see stricter ‘cold treatment to combat this harmful organism’. (4)
EU farmer’s pressure bore fruit in the European Parliament, where, on 15th December 2016 a resolution was approved calling for stricter import control measures for citrus, including the introduction of cold treatment. Spanish citrus farmers’ representatives welcomed the ‘historic resolution’, which it was felt sent an ‘unambiguous message’ to the EC on the need for stricter import controls. (5)
Dutch importers have expressed concerns, maintaining ‘in practice, this cold treatment measure entails a ban on imports, because some varieties cannot resist it’. Importers maintain the demands in the resolution are ‘based on a cold treatment report from 1969’, which ignores scientifically verified ‘alternative effective treatments’ which are now available’. It is argued by Dutch importers that while SPS protection measures are necessary, such measures should be ‘commensurate with the risk’. It is argued that in the very specific circumstances where such treatments might be necessary (where EU citrus producers repack imported fruit in the same areas where they pack their domestic production), then national level cold treatment requirements should be permitted. Dutch importers felt that based on the scientific evidence the EC could well reach different conclusions to the European Parliament. (5)
The South African citrus industries special representative to Europe, Deon Joubert, has endorsed this importer view of the proposed cold steri-treatment maintaining it was both ‘impractical and unnecessary’, describing such a a blanket regulation on citrus as ‘ridiculous’. He expressed the view that ‘there are more effective and proactive measures to deal with FCM in future seasons if it becomes a managed pest in the EU’. He acknowledged that the South African citrus industry needed ‘to get this under control and will implement a range of measures depending on the situation in each area’. He maintained the concerned South African government department ‘will inspect EU fruit with a zero tolerance’. He welcomed an earlier move in June by the EU authorities which spoke of ‘Cold treatment or any effective treatment‘ instead of only cold treatment. (9)
Source:
(1) Freshplaza.com, ‘South African citrus exports to EU increased 5%’, 9 December 2016
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/168068/South-African-citrus-exports-to-EU-increased-5-procent
(2) Freshplaza.com, ‘Another blow for South African citrus?’, 12 December 2016
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/168114/Another-blow-for-South-African-citrus
(3) freshfruitportal.com, ‘South Africa lifts EU citrus exports despite lower volumes tough CBS rules’, December 16, 2016
http://www.freshfruitportal.com/news/2016/12/16/south-africa-lifts-eu-citrus-exports-despite-lower-volumes-tough-cbs-rules/
(4) Copa-Cogeca, ‘Copa & Cogeca send letter to MEPs urging them to approve motion for a resolution which calls for stronger EU measures to prevent introduction of black spot in citrus fruit in the EU’, press release, 14 December 2016
http://www.copa-cogeca.be/Main.aspx?page=Archive
(5) Freshplaza.com, ‘In practice a cold treatment measure entails a ban on citrus imports’ 16 December 2016
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/168353/In-practice,-a-cold-treatment-measure-entails-a-ban-on-citrus-imports
(6) CBS Expert Panel, ‘Comments on: EFSA Panel on Plant Health, 2013. Draft scientific opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa (Guignardia citricarpa) for the EU territory with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options’, 11 September 2013
http://www.citrusres.com/sites/default/files/documents/CBS%20Expert%20Pa…
(7)Freshplaza.com, ‘South Africa may consider stopping citrus to Southern Europe’, 18 February 2015
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/135418/South-Africa-may-consider-stoping-citrus-to-Southern-Europe
(8) Agritrade, ‘Financing EU food and feed controls: Recent developments and implications of the ACP’, January 2015
http://agritrade.cta.int/Agriculture/Commodities/Horticulture/Financing-EU-food-and-feed-controls-Recent-developments-and-implications-for-the-ACP
(9) freshplaza.com, ‘No cold steri treatment for citrus this season’, 16 February 2017
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/170849/South-Africa-No-cold-steri-treatment-for-citrus-this-season
| Comment and Analysis The OECD has noted how the trade costs of non-tariff measures (such as SPS controls), are now ‘more important than prevailing tariff rates in obstructing trade’. UNCTAD for its part has highlighted how the design and implementation of non-tariff measures can have ‘restrictive and distortionary effects’, which can be systematically biased against small scale producers in developing countries (as well as low income and least developed countries). (8) Thus we find while South Africa has been able to maintain and expand its citrus exports in the face of stricter SPS controls (though be it at considerable additional cost), citrus exporters in neighbouring Swaziland (whose production is on a much smaller scale) have seen their exports to the EU fall an initial 75%, in response to the stricter controls, with only a small part of this market subsequently being recovered. Swazi Citrus exports to EU (tonnes)
The differential effects of SPS controls, depending on the scale of production and exports, arise from the high fixed costs which SPS control systems can entail. If these costs can be spread across a high volume then the trade effects are greatly reduced, if not, markets can easily be lost. Against this background designing and implementing SPS measures in ways which ensure both full respect for the legitimate objective of SPS and food safety control measures while avoiding systematic bias against small scale producers is a complex yet essential challenge. This is particularly important to ensuring SPS measures are not used deliberately as trade restrictive measures. The citrus black spot dispute between South Africa and the EU since 2013 appears to be such a case. A 2000 EU CBS risk assessment had found “there was no risk of CBS establishing in the EU as the climate was unsuitable and the fruit is not a pathway”. This finding was subsequently confirmed by a 2010 US pest risk assessment and the findings of a 2013 international panel of citrus industry scientific experts who concluded ‘citrus fruit has never been demonstrated to be a pathway for the entry, establishment and spread of CBS’. (6) Despite these findings Spanish citrus producers continue to push for zero-tolerance of citrus black spot infections and successfully lobbied for more rigorous SPS inspection protocols for imports of citrus into Spain. This gave rise to a situation where the frequency of interceptions of CBS infected fruit in Spain were nearly 24 times higher than in Holland and 69 times higher than in the UK (7). This highlights a structural problem with how the EU regulates SPS controls, the implementation of which remains a national responsibility. While within the common EU SPS control regime, minimum inspection requirements for ensuring the SPS safety of imported products are established, no maximum levels of inspection requirements are established, beyond the statement of the general principle that SPS inspections should not unduly disrupt trade. This creates opportunities for national producer interests to secure stricter control measures, which de facto come to constitute barriers to trade. This structural problem needs to be addressed if EU SPS control programmes are not to degenerate into trade restrictive practices. More broadly this suggests the EU should support the creation of independent, robust, reliable, non-partisan bodies to resolve SPS disputes, either where the underlying science is an issue of contention or where alternative lower cost methods of application are available. This should include: clear procedures to be followed; strict timelines for the conduct of the agreed procedures; and a commitment by both parties to be bound by the findings of an arbitration body. Potentially the new EPA provisions could provide a basis for the creation of such an independent arbitration body. However this is unlikely, so long as EU member states face no restrictions on the maximum level of inspections they can undertake. |
| Key words: Horticulture, SPS, citrus fruit, South Africa, Citrus black spot, African coddling moth Area for Posting: Horticulture, CAP, SPS |