Brussels, 16/07/2012 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 16 July, most of the European agriculture ministers supported the exceptional measures proposed as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) to allow the EU to: - react rapidly and effectively in the event of threats of disturbances to the internal or external markets; - support markets affected by measures designed to fight the spread of animal disease; - take account of serious disturbances of the market directly related to a loss in consumer confidence as a result of the existence of risks to public health. Furthermore, a majority of countries (including Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Finland, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Estonia and Slovenia) called for the scope of measures to fight market disturbances to be extended to all products.
“I note with satisfaction the Council's support for the Commission's proposals on the exceptional measures in the common organisation of the single market” (Articles 154, 155 and 156), said Dacian Ciolos, European Agriculture Commissioner, at the beginning of the debate at the Agriculture Council. These measures should be capable of reacting in the event of market disturbances, losses in consumer confidence, or to specific problems which could not be foreseen or even imagined previously, due to their nature. “We cannot exhaustively predict the types of crisis we may have to face in the future”, the commissioner explained. He proposed updating the tools. As in the case of the E. coli crisis, the loss of consumer confidence, even though there was no technical basis for it, can have serious negative effects. The Commission also proposes an emergency procedure for measures to be brought in quickly.
As regards excluding a few sectors from market disturbance prevention measures (Art 154.2), “we all know that the budgetary resources for the future cannot be extended. It seems to me to be reasonable to continue to exclude sectors which have never benefited from single CMO measures and which are very few in number, such as horses destined for slaughter, equine meat, potatoes, flour and semolina and cork”, said Ciolos.
Denmark argued that these exceptional measures should be used only in the event of a serious crisis, such as an epidemic, and should be limited in time. The country called for export refunds to be removed.
Hungary stated that the Commission's proposals constituted “a good basis”, but called for the reference prices to be updated. In the view of Belgium, the proposal is a good working basis and offers the necessary flexibility to react to crises. All sectors should be covered, Brussels argued. The fund for the management of agricultural crises must remain outside the EU budget, as the Commission proposes, Belgium added.
In the view of Spain, the proposal is “adequate”, though worthy of a number of improvements. The proposal should cover all sectors and take account of commercial damage in the event of veterinary or phytosanitary disease.
The proposal is a problem, said Sweden, which is concerned that these exceptional measures are taken “too often” and not always put to good use. This country called for a precise definition to be drawn up of what constitutes a crisis and opposes any increase in the number of sectors covered. “Fluctuations in price are normal, and we must limit the use of public intervention”, the Swedish delegation argued, which is also critical of the reserve planned to manage crises.
France argued that it is vital to have public intervention tools on the agricultural markets (the milk crisis and E. coli crisis were a cruel reminder of this, the country pointed out). France would like tools which are sufficiently diversified, flexible and reactive to constitute an effective safety net for all operators. The mechanism of exceptional measures proposed by the Commission “goes in the right direction”, says Paris. The funds allocated to the crisis reserve “must be maintained and it must be possible to mobilise them instantly”, the French representative said. France also argued in favour of keeping sugar quotas (which are due to expire in 2015) in place until 2020 and planting rights in the wine sector (it is calling to keep in place “a tool to master production potential”).
Slovenia supported the Commission's proposal on the reserve in the event of crisis (outside the EU budget).
Germany requested a restrictive definition of the notion of crisis and, like Denmark, found the notion of other factors impacting on the market as too vague. Germany stressed that measures should be flexible but must not change intervention price levels and must respect WTO rules, thus avoiding the creation of any distortions to competition. It does not want the measures to be applied to all sectors.
Austria and France highlighted the need to maintain sugar quotas and vine plantation rights.
The United Kingdom wanted coherent and pragmatic measures and therefore a review of the Commission proposals on the matter. This delegation considers that it is necessary to distinguish between crisis and price volatility. According to the United Kingdom, which is opposed to the list of products covered being unlimited, there is a risk that these measures be inappropriately used as income support.
Dacian Ciolos launched a small attack on countries that requested a clearer definition of “unexpected situations”. He said that he would have liked these delegations to have been able before the E.coli crisis to define what happened during this crisis and provide a clear context to the Commission to be able to take action. He asked whether these countries had a crystal ball for predicting what will happen over the next few years and therefore defining more clearly what an unexpected situation is. Germany initially criticised Spain for being responsible for the E.coli crisis, although this was not the case. A mechanism for compensating fruit and vegetable producers had to be introduced. (LC/transl.fl)