Brussels, 31/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - The representatives of the three institutions of the EU are meeting this Tuesday 1 April to try to reach a political agreement on the proposal to improve the promotion programmes, in third countries and on the single market, for agricultural products. An agreement seems close at hand, unless the Commission should block the agreement on the details for the funding of these programmes. Indeed, the European Commission is believed to disagree with the rates put forward by the Council, but the European Parliament, on the other hand, is inclined to accept them.
The compromise reached at the Agriculture Council of March excludes national co-funding, as called for by the European Commission. In return, and in line with the position of the MEPs, the participation of the EU budget will, under the Council's text, cover up to 75% of the eligible expenditure of the single programmes (presented by a single country) and multi-country programmes (presented by entities of more than one member state), and even 85% in the event of serious disturbances to the market, with the rest to be paid for by the proposing organisations. These rates of co-funding would be increased by 5% for the countries under financial assistance (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Romania).
During the technical discussions, the Commission stated that it could not agree to such a sizeable increase of the rate of Community co-funding (initially, it proposed 50% for the single programmes and 60% for the multi-country programmes). Readers may recall that, if the Commission rejects the agreement on the funding, the Council would have to vote unanimously for it to be valid (and unanimity would be extremely difficult to achieve, particularly on the subject of the funding).
The Commission also takes the view that EU co-funding should be differentiated between the single programmes and the multiple programmes (to ensure that the multiple programmes do not disappear). Many countries of the EU (among them France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) pointed out, at expert level on Friday 28 March, that getting rid of national co-funding was already a major concession to the Commission and argued that it would be better to stick to the mandate of the Council than to “reopen Pandora's box”.
Under the Commission's proposal, the envelope of the common agriculture policy (CAP) given over to all of these actions would gradually rise to €200 million in 2020, compared to €61 million in the 2013 budget.
On the national quality programmes, the countries of the EU do not wish the Presidency to move away from the mandate of the Council, which opens up the possibility to all national programmes for promotion in the EU and third countries. At the trialogue of 28 February, the EP and the Commission suggested limiting the eligibility of the national programmes (single market only in the event of crisis, and third countries under certain conditions). At Friday's SCA, however, a majority at the Council called for the Council's initial mandate (single market and third countries) to be retained.
On the eligibility of products for Community promotion programmes, there appears to be a consensus between the institutions. Wine should be added, as should fisheries and fish-farming products (but within the framework of “baskets” containing other products). Lastly, cotton and sweetcorn should be added to the annex.
In the event of an agreement, the Special Committee on Agriculture will meet on Wednesday 2 April to approve it. The committee on agriculture of the EP is expected to vote to approve the compromise text on promotion on 7 April. (LC)