Brussels, 24/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on Monday 24 March, the member states of the EU managed to define their position on a compromise text aiming to tighten up EU rules on the promotion of agricultural products. Negotiations with the Parliament will be able to start from 26 March.
The Greek Presidency said at the Agriculture Council that agreement had been reached on a text featuring the most problematic issues of the proposal on the promotion of agricultural products, specifically EU financial aid to these programmes and the role of the countries in the selection procedure. A session of the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) was held in the late afternoon of Monday to finalise the text of the Council's negotiation mandate, which includes many points which chime with the EP's position.
Following a debate at the Council, Athanasios Tsaftaris, Greek Minister for Rural Development and Food, confirmed that the Council had “reached an agreement on the political issues”. “The CSA will finalise the negotiation mandate”, he added.
EU financial aid and national co-funding. In its proposal, the Commission suggested keeping at 50% the maximum rate for EU financial participation in the programmes (60% for single programmes targeting third countries, multi-country programmes and information and promotion measures for fruit and vegetables specifically targeting schoolchildren). It also suggested removing the national co-funding option. By way of compromise, the Greek Presidency proposed getting rid of national co-funding and increasing the level of EU funding. As in the EP's stance, the Presidency's text provides for an EU financial contribution to the programmes of 75% of permissible expenditure, rising to 85% in the event of a crisis.
The Presidency indicated that the text would be modified marginally to take account of the requests of certain countries. In particular, a 5% increase in the Community co-funding rate will be possible for countries under EU financial assistance (Romania, Cyprus, Portugal and Greece).
Role of the member states in the selection procedure for single programmes. The legal services of the Council stated that it would be hard to imagine the member states' future role in the selection of the programmes. Commissioner for Agriculture Dacian Ciolos pointed out that selection and pre-selection by the member states was not possible within the architecture of the reform of the CAP. A single selection stage carried out by independent experts (as proposed by the Commission) was a request made by the sector. The EP and the Presidency are calling for a greater involvement of the countries in selecting the programmes. Ciolos said that the member states can play a vital “advisory” role to the proposing organisations, upstream of the submission of the programmes. “For this to happen, there is no need for specific provisions in the regulation”, said the commissioner. The Commission can keep the member states informed of the programmes selected, but within the limits laid down by the financial regulation.
France and Spain called for a slightly meatier role for the states in selecting the programmes, arguing that the countries should be informed and the competent authorities consulted on the programmes submitted.
“A rapid agreement at first reading is desirable for this dossier, but not at any price. The architecture and philosophy of the reform must be upheld”, the commissioner stressed. He raised two other points on which the Council was in agreement.
Eligible products. The unconditional eligibility of the national quality systems “does not strike me as acceptable”, said the commissioner. He criticised the idea of spending European public money on promoting strictly national systems and origins. “We are aiming to avoid duplications of effort within the CAP” (as these funds already exist under rural development). He went on to add: “Making the national quality systems eligible as a principal message of the European election campaign goes against the philosophy of the reform. I am, however, prepared to look into the conditions under which they could be eligible, during the trialogue session”, he said, referring to crisis events or in relation to a third country, as the EP proposed. For any extensions of eligibility to products such as wine, “above all we want to avoid duplications of effort with other instruments of the CAP, in order to avoid the risk of double funding”, the commissioner concluded.
Promotion in the single market. The Presidency and the EP are introducing promotion in the single market (initially limited to information). “We wish to call attention to the risk of bringing in undesired competition between European products”, said Commissioner Ciolos. He argued that, if promotion was authorised on the single market with brands (as requested), guarantees for fair promotion, a strictly level playing field in terms of reference to brands and full respect for the rules of the single market would be required. (LC)