Onus on UK in beef crisis

Date: 28/03/1996

By Michael Mann

NO amount of harsh words from the UK can shake the European Commission's belief that its total ban on British beef exports is completely justified.

Confirming the Commission's decision to press ahead with the ban in the European Parliament yesterday (27 March), Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler made it plain that his most pressing duty was to Europe's consumers, and to farmers and traders in the other 14 member states.

Fischler's tone was noticeably more conciliatory than in a letter to UK Farm Minister Douglas Hogg last weekend, but the onus remains on a hesitant London to take measures to restore confidence in an industry once more plunged into crisis.

Although Fischler's initial announcement of the proposed ban on Monday appeared heavy-handed, the Commission's unanimous decision to endorse it reflects the political reality that markets are in chaos and the bad image of UK beef is rubbing off on its EU partners.

Fischler admitted that whatever the evidence, “given the very serious and volatile situation we find ourselves in today, it is futile to talk about scientific fact or evidence” and that action had to be taken to restore consumer confidence.

Nor is the Commission being deflected from its insistence that it is fully within its legal rights in imposing a world-wide ban on UK produce, insisting this is the only way to ensure that no British beef or beef products find their way back onto the EU market through reimport.

British officials, aware of the delicacy of the problem and the low ebb of relations between London and its EU partners, claim to have given no thought to invoking vital national interests as a way of blocking the ban. They are concentrating instead on damage limitation and persuading the Commission to help finance whatever measures they decide on to restore public confidence.

Fischler was initially critical of the British handling of the discovery of a possible link between “mad cow disease” (BSE) and the human condition Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and the effect the lack of clear communications across the Channel could have on the EU's beef sector.

But Fischler yesterday stressed the need for solidarity and rejected charges that the measures were designed “to punish, embarrass or marginalise anyone”. He also pledged the Commission would “consider any means of assisting the UK in either a technical and/or financial way” on the basis of a proposal from the British government.

Privately, however, officials said the Commissioner was “hopping mad” that London had only given half a hour's warning of last week's announcement.

The ball is now firmly in the UK's court to come up with some practical measures for the Commission's consideration. The National Farmers' Union is urging the government to remove cows which have come to end of their useful life (which would normally be used for meat) from the food chain.

Under the NFU proposal, the UK would incinerate 15,000 head of livestock a week and require compensation of about 420 million ecu per year. The NFU points out the Commission provided 70&percent; of the money needed to compensate German pig farmers for damage caused by Classical Swine Fever between 1993 and 1995.

For the first time in two years, the crisis looks like triggering heavy purchases of beef into EU intervention storage. There is around 700 million ecu slack in the 1996 agricultural budget and special “safety net” intervention would allow virtually unlimited quantities of beef to be bought in, beyond the nominal 1996 limit of 400,000 tonnes.

Fears of the knock-on effect on the overall beef market already seem to be becoming reality. Sales have slumped in several EU countries, including France, and some non-EU countries, including Egypt, Libya, Ghana and Albania, have banned all EU beef.