Brussels, 29/09/2011 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 28 September, in Brussels, the European Parliament was almost unanimous in calling for the EU programme for food aid to the deprived to be kept in place, and condemned the stance taken by the group of six countries blocking extension of aid in 2012 and 2013. We recall that Germany, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Sweden refuse to extend the aid in question because, they argue, it is a matter that should come within the scope of national competence as the distribution of food to the deprived is part of social policy and not the common agricultural policy (CAP).
The European Commission has informed the EP that it is examining solutions for bringing the situation out of deadlock and, possibly, for proposing a common legal base for the CAP and social policy, to be effective for the years 2012 and 2013. European Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Cioloº hoped the stalemate in the Council would be overcome. The dossier will come up for discussion next Monday at the Council of European employment and social affairs ministers. In his speech on the State of the Union, Commission President José Manuel Barroso defended the programme saying: “Right now, we also need to act to help the 80 million Europeans at risk of poverty. This means that the Council must finally approve our proposal to safeguard the programme for the supply of food for the most deprived persons. I would like to thank this Parliament for the political support it has given to our proposed solution.”
Marek Sawicki, Poland's Agriculture Minister, took the view that the “opponents of the programme have no reason to hide behind the technical and legal obstacles”. “By abolishing the programme we do not eliminate poverty”, he opined, before going on to say: “Let's not be ashamed of poverty - let's actively limit it”. Sawicki asserted that the Polish Presidency of the EU Council does not wish to pass on a hot potato to the following presidency. “As a politician, I must say I am a little ashamed to see that the blocking minority is made up of countries which, in the past, have heavily used the market intervention mechanism, and in the past have never had any problems with passing the intervention stock to poor people”, the Polish minister said. He asked: “Aren't these six governments ashamed that no decision is taken to help 18 million people in Europe who expect to benefit from the programme?”
Some want to make a programme disappear just at a time when it is up and running correctly, and also when it is needed, Cioloº said. Legal and financial issues at stake for the programme to continue to exist may be resolved for 2012 and 2013, he assured, saying: “What the member states are missing is the political will to share a common social project. We cannot hide behind a ruling of the European Court of Justice. The Court's ruling does not question whether the programme is appropriate or not but rather questions a legal base, which must be updated - and it is precisely up to the political institutions to decide on amendments to this legal base”.
From this point of view, the European Commission has clearly made a choice as, for the post-2013 period, it has already recommended within the framework of its proposals on the new multiannual financial framework, that these programmes be incorporated into economic and social cohesion policy with a budget of €2.5 billion for the period 2014-2020 - precisely in order to ensure that such programmes may continue. For the years 2012 and 2013, which are currently in question, the Commission's proposal would allow the gap to be bridged between the current regulations limiting purchases mainly to intervention products and the year 2014, from whence there will also be a new legal base as part of social cohesion policy.
If such a decision were not made by the Council now (the Parliament has already expressed its point of view), the 2012 programme would only represent a quarter of what it did in past years. And, for 2013, there will be no plan, it was said, as it is quite unlikely that there will be major market intervention allowing public stocks to be disposed of.
The Commission sent a signal to the Czech Republic, which is the only country of the group of six that seems able to change its stance as, unlike the other five, it takes part in the programme. A number of countries, including the new EU member states, have expressed the wish for the programme to continue to be fully financed by the Community budget. “I am willing to show flexibility if the Council manages to find a majority for taking the decision”, Cioloº said.
Czeslaw Adam Siekierski (EPP, Poland) urged the six countries that are blocking funding to “change their position”. As practically all MEPs spoke out in favour of the programme, Siekierski went on to ask: “Why is the opinion of MEPs not taken into account? It is disappointing”. And what must one think of the reliability of EU institutions?, he asked. He pointed out that, for the next financial framework 2014-2020, the Commission is proposing €2.5 billion for food aid to the very poor, i.e. around €350 million annually, as opposed to €500 million today. He requested that this total budget be increased to €3.5 billion, to maintain aid at its current level.
Luis Manuel Capouloas Santos (S&D, Portugal) said that this quarrel “should not even have taken place. The sense of solidarity should have let us resolve this bureaucratic problem”. It was, he said, “incomprehensible and unacceptable” that these six countries had decided to block a food aid decision, arguing legal reasons. The Council's moral position is “shocking” Capoulas Santos said. Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy), who chairs the European Parliament agriculture committee, noted that, while the EU was debating whether to free up €500 million, the United States was investing €20 billion per year to help its poor. “Frankly, the opposition from the six countries is astonishing. It is not even about the money, because there is still enough available for the next two years”, he went on. Estelle Grelier (S&D, France) called on each to “assume their responsibilities: if the member states want, this issue can be settled as early as Monday, at the meeting of the Council of EU employment and social affairs ministers”.
George Lyon (ALDE, UK) took a more balanced, less hostile position. “In my opinion, this programme belongs in social policy and not European agricultural policy, and it should be a national responsibility”. That was why, he said, he backed the changes proposed by the Commission for the period from 2014 to 2020. “However, the situation we face today concerning the next two years of this programme is completely and utterly unacceptable. We need to find a swift solution. The risk is clear.” The money available to charities in 20 member states will drop from €500 million to only €113 if the Council continues to block a solution, he stated. It was, he argued, a scandalous situation and he called for a solution to be found so that the aid could be kept in place in 2011 and 2012.
French MEP Karima Delli, representing the Greens/EFA, pointed out that more than 43 million Europeans are facing food poverty. She said the urgency of the situation was real. “If nothing happens before the end of the year, food banks will have a shortfall of more than €300 million and there is nothing to say that national governments will be able to do anything to pick up the slack.” She addressed her comments to the incoming Danish government, which will assume the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU from January of next year: “See reason. Will there have to be food riots in Europe before it becomes clear that it is imperative to change your thinking?” (LC/transl.jl/rt)