Brussels, 13/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - Extending the milk package to other sectors, taking measures in the dairy sector and in the sugar sector, and strengthening producer organisations - these are the sensitive issues that make up the common market organisation (CMO) chapter of reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
In addition to all the others on the direct payment regulation, these controversial matters are expected to be settled at the last minute by the EU institutions either during or just a few hours before the Agriculture Council of 24 and 25 June, in Luxembourg. The Council aims to reach a political agreement on reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) but the European Parliament calls for most issues to be settled by the Agriculture Council end June (see EUROPE 10859).
Discussions at technical level have shown that there are differences between institutions and between countries on many themes of the single CMO.
Milk. At the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) held on Monday 10 June, the Irish Presidency of the EU Council pointed out that the Council is on its own over the integration of the milk package in the regulation on single common market organisation. The EP and the Commission want extension of the provisions proposed for milk to all the other sectors, while the Council (by default) is opposed to this. During Monday's SCA, several countries (Spain, Portugal and Belgium in particular) defended integration of the milk package in the single CMO, unlike others (Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg and Germany).
Producer organisations (POs). On this point, the Council is on its own facing the EP and the Commission. The Council finds it hard to accept a compulsory approach on PO recognition. On the management of deliveries, the Council wants application solely for cheese, while the EP is calling for extension to other products.
Competition. The trialogue discussions showed that it is the EP that is isolated against the Council and Commission in defending amendments providing for national authorities responsible for competition to ensure uniformity of competition rules across the countries. The Council and Commission consider it is not necessary for competition rules to be set out in any way in the single CMO.
Vine and wine. On the new system for vine planting authorisation, the compromise is likely to be on the basis of the Council text, but there are still differences over the maximum limit of annual growth of planted surfaces (Council and Commission want 1% and the EP 0.5%). Then there is discussion about the dates for implementing the new regime. Council and EP want this to be from 2019 while the Commission is proposing that it take effect in 2016. The date for the end of the new system should be between 2024 (Council) and 2030 (EP). During Monday's SCA, several countries, such as France and Spain, supported the Presidency of the EU Council which defends entry into force of the new system in 2019, an end to the new system after 2024 and a 1% limit for authorisations. Some countries, such as Italy, Spain and Bulgaria, underlined the importance of measures for the promotion of vine and wine production.
Sugar. The SCA delegations also discussed this issue. The United Kingdom, Denmark, Estonia, Sweden and the Netherlands in particular took a stance against the extension of sugar quotas, not wanting them to be extended beyond 2017 (the date adopted by the Council in March). Some countries, such as France, Romania and Slovakia, called for quotas to be renewed until 2020, as requested by the EP. Several countries (Portugal, Italy, Finland, Slovenia and Spain to name but a few) took a stance in favour of possible reallocation of quotas and improved supply.
Norms and standards. Member states (such as Denmark, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands and Hungary) consider that general marketing standards as described in the single CMO should be abolished, because they are over-prescriptive for many sectors. According to these countries, only specific standards should be maintained. These countries advocate keeping to the Council's general guidelines. Some countries, such as Belgium and Finland, note that the general standards as described entail legal insecurity.
Horizontal regulation. On financial discipline (and adjustments), the Presidency suggests applying not Article 43(3) of the Treaty but the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision). Some countries (Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom, for example) accept this while noting that this is a major concession granted to the EP and that this should be taken into account at the time of the final compromise. On the subject of the crisis reserve, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands in particular consider that the Danish proposal (which provides for funding not used in the crisis reserve of the year N to be transferred to the reserve of the year N + 1 rather than be reimbursed to farmers) would simplify the procedure compared to the Commission's proposal. Finally, on the system of identification of agricultural plots, several delegations call for as long a transition period as possible, at least until 2019, for identification of agricultural plots. (LC/transl.jl)