TTIP Commissione Parlamento Europeo

I suggerimenti dati al Parlamento Europeo dall’apposita Commissione sui TTIP, The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership, il Trattato UE-USA sul commercio in via di negoziazione (TTIP Commissione Parlamento Europeo)

La Commissione aveva sottoposto al Parlamento i seguenti suggerimenti da seguire nel votare la propria posizione sui TTIP (European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – TTIP).

Il Parlamento ha adottato la propria posizione nel luglio 2015.

I suggerimenti espressi da detta Commissione parlamentare menzionavano espressamente il settore del vino:


The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas the EU agricultural sector is a very sensitive and essential part of the TTIP negotiations and stands to benefit from new or increased market access opportunities;

B.  whereas a major barrier to agri-food trade between the EU and the US, and one which makes trade in certain items impossible, is the lack of common standards in this area;

C. whereas the consequences of the Russian embargo have clearly demonstrated the continuous geopolitical relevance of agriculture, the importance of having access to a range of different agricultural markets and the need for strong and strategic trade partnerships with reliable trade partners;

D. whereas trade negotiations with the US are a major opportunity to improve US access to certain EU export products, such as fruit and vegetables, wine, and certain products with high added value;

E.  whereas the TTIP is an opportunity to ease reciprocal regulatory burdens that unnecessarily hamper trade, by providing more and transparent information such as the details that should be included on a label, to clarify administrative and customs procedures and to align and simplify regulatory regimes where feasible;

F.  whereas it is important for European agriculture to secure a mutually beneficial trade deal with the US in order to advance Europe’s position as a key player on the global market without jeopardising the current quality standards of European agricultural products and future improvement of those standards, while preserving the European agricultural model and ensuring its economic and social viability;

G. whereas the TTIP is an opportunity to set high standards globally and to supplement standards on both continents, especially at times when new economic actors that do not share the EU or US commitment to rule-based trade, high levels of consumer protection, environmental standards and animal welfare are gaining scale;

H. whereas the Commission has given assurances that respect for European food safety, human, plant and animal health, animal welfare, and environmental and consumer protection standards will be a fundamental and uncompromisable tenet of the negotiations for European agriculture and will confirm and strengthen the EU standards within an open, fair, modern and global trade policy system;

I.   whereas the main obstacles to EU-US trade in agricultural and food products lie in the behind-the-border issues of internal regulation and non-tariff barriers;

J.   whereas TTIP negotiations should give priority to consumer interests;

K. whereas the harmonisation of EU and US rules must not under any circumstances jeopardise consumer health or lower the quality standards that must be met by US products placed on the European market;

L.  whereas geographical indications are independent intellectual property rights and not a species of brand;

M. whereas, thanks to advances in research, the development of ex-ante assessments of the risks related to the harmfulness of food can be supported by using advanced computational methods based on the analysis of large volumes of data and backed up by high-performance computing structures that are able to improve the application of the precautionary principle;

1.  Calls on the Commission to:

a. ensure that any deal reached is global and balanced and covers all of the sectors coming under the TTIP, bearing in mind that agriculture must not be used as a bargaining chip in efforts to secure access to the US market for other sectors and that agriculture is a highly strategic political issue on which food security and the way of life of all Europeans depend;

b. prioritise an ambitious and balanced result of the negotiations for agriculture, a sector whose key components (market access, geographical indications and sanitary and phytosanitary measures) should be tackled early, on the basis of a detailed map of all relevant US barriers, and in parallel in the negotiation process, whilst maintaining food safety standards and consumer protection, in order to give Parliament sufficient time and clarity to discuss and evaluate this chapter with stakeholders, European citizens, civil society and social partners, focusing in particular on farmers and small family holdings;

c. establish a modern and improved Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the TTIP, that does not undermine the sovereign rights of the EU, the Member States, and the regional and local authorities, but provides a fair opportunity for foreign investors to seek and achieve redress of grievances;

d. firmly commit to the strict preservation of current and future standards on food safety and human health, plant health and crop and environmental protection, consumer protection and animal health and welfare, as defined under EU legislation; ensure that the enhancement of these standards is in no way hampered in the future, that EU fundamental values such as the precautionary principle and sustainable farming are not undermined, and that EU citizens can continue to have confidence in the traceability and labelling of products on the EU market ; and outline specific measures to uphold the precautionary principle in negotiations;

e. ensure, therefore, that the competent EU authorities are involved in the control and verification of establishments, facilities and products eligible for exports to the EU with respect to the sanitary or phytosanitary requirement applicable in the US, and expresses concerns regarding the Commission’s textual proposal to the US in this respect, bearing in mind that, in prior EU trade agreements, the EU retained the ability to audit and verify the control programme of other parties to the agreements and calling on the Commission to maintain this approach;

f.  make every effort to ensure that agricultural imports are allowed into the EU only if they have been produced in a manner consistent with European consumer protection, animal welfare and environmental protection standards and minimum social standards;

g. bear in mind that the TTIP negotiations cannot in themselves change the implementation of or proposals for legislation in any area, including European food safety, SPS standards, animal welfare and environmental measures;

h. ensure a positive and ambitious final outcome of the negotiations for agriculture, reflecting both the offensive and defensive interests of the EU agricultural sector concerning the abolition or reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, including in particular sanitary and phytosanitary standards and procedures, securing a strong position for high-quality European products so that EU producers make genuine gains in terms of access to the US market, and consider that measures to protect consumers and their health or maintain food safety should not be regarded as non-tariff barriers;

i.  encourage exchanges of know-how between both sides regarding food safety and security;

j.  negotiate a flexible scheme for plant health checks on European exports that upholds safety standards without harming European exports to the US market and thereby making for an increase in exports to the US;

k. secure a level playing field, by encouraging fair fiscal policies and trade practices for food products and by treating as sensitive those products or sectors for which direct and indirect competition would expose EU agricultural producers, including smallholder farmers, either in the EU as a whole or in individual regions thereof, to excessive pressure or unfair competition, for example in cases where regulatory conditions and related costs of production, such as animal housing requirements, in the EU diverge from those in the US, and consider all possible options for treatment of all sensitive products, including tariff reduction and limited tariff rate quotas;

l.  make every effort to have a safeguard clause incorporated into the agreement, as is clearly set out in the negotiating mandate, which would be invoked where a rise in imports of a particular product threatened to cause serious harm to domestic food production;

m. submit, as already called for by several Member States, a summary of the concessions granted in the trade agreements already concluded and in those being negotiated, so that an overview of all these concessions can be obtained per product, without which it is impossible to negotiate on sensitive products;

n. inform Parliament and the public as early as possible about a potential list of sensitive products so that all stakeholders have enough time to consider and assess the proposals as soon as possible and before the end of the negotiations;

o. secure appropriate legal protection on the US market for EU geographical indications and quality EU agricultural products, and measures to deal with improper use and misleading information and practices, and secure protection regarding the labelling, traceability and genuine origin of agricultural products as an essential element of a balanced agreement;

p. include in the TTIP the agreement on organic products, extended to those not already covered (wine);

q. incorporate the 2006 wine agreement between the EU and the USA into the TTIP, deleting the 17 semi-generic names contained in that sectoral agreement;

r.  take into account the fact that US farm income support in times of global price volatility could put EU farmers at a competitive disadvantage and that EU crisis management measures should be re-evaluated in order to reflect changing market conditions;

s.  create a bilateral joint working committee for permanent trade discussions on agriculture in order to anticipate and eliminate trade irritants through an early warning system in the event of regulatory evolutions and promote regulatory convergence;

t.  engage in a fully transparent, timely and comprehensive manner with the European Parliament, all national parliaments and agricultural stakeholders on all aspects of the negotiations, and ensure compliance with all legislation on which our European agricultural and social model is based;

u. ensure that the US ban on beef imports from the EU is lifted;

v. ensure a level playing field by introducing a labelling requirement for imported products that are produced by methods that do not comply with EU standards on animal welfare, food safety, and human and animal health;

w. submit without delay a clear and objective study on the impact of the TTIP on European agriculture, sector by sector, particularly its impact on small family farms, and engage in a timely and transparent manner with research institutions, both public and private, that work in the area of food safety and can provide considerable input into all aspects of the negotiations.

Va evidenziato che la commissione del Parlamento Europeo suggerisce di “deleting the 17 semi-generic names contained in that sectoral agreement“, in quanto ciò permetterebbe di vietare a chiunque di utilizzare negli USA i termini Burgundy, Chablis, Champagne, Chianti, Claret, Haut Sauterne, Hock, Madeira, Malaga, Marsala, Moselle, Port, Retsina, Rhine, Sauterne, Sherry e Tokay su etichette di vini che non siano effettivamente originari delle corrispondenti regioni geografiche europee, cosa che i menzionati  Accordi del 2006 ancora consentono entri certi limiti, e cioè ammettendolo in favore di chi negli USA lo faceva anteriormente al 13 dicembre 2005.

Sembra tuttavia che le trattative vadano in altro senso!