Brussels, 28/09/2010 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 27 September, during the Agriculture Council (EUROPE 10217), the amended European Commission proposal on the adaptation of the programme for distributing food to the most needy people in the Union, provoked a considerable amount of criticism. Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden stated that this kind of action was part of the national social political remit and not part of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Other countries rejected the Commission project to introduce co-funding by the national authorities for these measures which currently are fully financed through the EU budget.
Dacian Cioloº, the European commissioner for agriculture, defended his position because he is “convinced” that this measure's rightful place is within the framework of the CAP. As well as aligning the legal text on the provisions contained in the Lisbon Treaty, particularly with regard to the delegated act of executing these measures, the new proposal: - incorporates a ceiling on the Union's annual contribution of €500 million; - expands nutritional choice; - reaffirms the appropriateness of national co-funding (public or private) but with stable reduced rates for participating member states (10% for those benefiting from Cohesion Funds and 25% for the others); - grants member states the possibility of stipulating preference for Union foodstuffs.
Germany said that this proposal infringed the principle of subsidiarity. The distribution of foodstuffs is the competency of member states; therefore it falls within the social policy remit, because the CAP has changed. Initially, this programme was aimed at using up surpluses. Intervention stocks, however, disappeared with the reforms and the new programme therefore urges the purchase of products on the market, which is rejected by Germany. “The United Kingdom cannot accept this proposal”, explained the British. The United Kingdom also underlined the criticism made by the Court of Auditors on the efficiency of the system (which only provides one meal a month per person). The Netherlands also referred to non-respect of the subsidiarity principle, the erroneous choice of the legal basis and the difficulties for controlling the programme. The Czech Republic (the other country which, since 2008, has been part of the countries opposing the programme) affirmed that aid for the most needy was part of social policy. Nonetheless, it said that it had still not defined its position on the proposal. Sweden said that the amendments proposed by the Commission did not change the country's position. Sweden, similarly to Denmark, is hostile to the programme.
Several countries (Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Finland, Greece, Slovenia and Hungary) said that there were problems with the plan for introducing co-funding. Dacian Cioloº explained that national co-funding could either be public (national authorities) or private (donors). The Belgian minister, Sabine Laruelle, the acting president of the Agriculture Council, sarcastically pointed out that “there is still a little way to go before reaching a compromise”. There will be a more far-reaching debate at the Agriculture Council on this issue in October or November. (L.C./transl.fl)