Brussels, 02/04/2014 (Agence Europe) - Late afternoon on Tuesday 1 April, the three institutions of the EU reached a political agreement on the compromise text on programmes to promote EU agricultural products. The regulation will, amongst other things, increase the EU budget earmarked for these programmes aiming to highlight the merits of consuming EU agricultural products in third country and EU countries, from €60 million at the moment to €200 million euros in 2020.
The Greek Presidency of the Council worked extremely hard to pull off this small coup: concluding the promotion dossier in less than five months (the Commission's proposal dates back to 21 November 2013). This is the fastest agreement on agricultural texts negotiated since the co-decision procedure was brought in. Following the trialogue agreement, the compromise text on promotion was approved by the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) on Wednesday 2 April. The committee on agriculture of the European Parliament is set to approve the text of the regulation on Monday7 April, and it will then be approved in plenary in mid-April (session from 14 to 17 April) and adopted by the Council soon after that.
The reformed common agriculture policy (CAP) encourages farmers to come together within organisations more. In this context, the promotion system agreed will be open to new beneficiaries, such as producer organisations. Strict guidelines will be laid down on the possibility for the promotion programmes to refer to the origin of products or brand names.
Dacian Ciolos, Commissioner for Agriculture, welcomed the agreement. He said that one of the major changes is the emphasis which is now laid on promotion activities outside the EU to win new markets, and to programmes presented by more than one country in order to establish better cooperation and therefore a more genuine European added value. At present, programmes targeting third countries represent 30% of the budget and multi-country programmes just 16%, and one of the major aims from this reform is to “encourage a large number of these programmes and reverse the trend”, the commissioner stated.
The main elements of the compromise between the EP and the Council are as follows:
Financing of the measures. In line with the Commission's initial proposal, there will be no more national co-funding. In return, the financial contribution of the EU to the promotion programmes will be increased: 70% of eligible expenditure for single programmes on the internal market, 80% of eligible expenditure for multi-country programmes (those presented by more than one country) targeting the internal market and 80% of expenditure for promotions to third countries, 85% of eligible expenditure in the event of crises within the sector (loss of consumer confidence), with no distinction between single and multi-country programmes. The financial contribution of the EU will be increased by five percentage points (75%, 85% and 90% of the eligible expenditure respectively) in member states under financial assistance of the EU (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Romania).
The Council and the EP, which agreed on a slightly higher level of EU co-funding (75% or 85% in the event of crisis), therefore took a step towards the Commission, which felt that these levels of funding out of the EU budget were too high. Initially, the Commission proposed Community co-funding of 50% for single programmes (60% under certain circumstances) and 60% for multi-country programmes.
Eligible products. The information and promotion measures may cover: - products listed in annex I to the Treaty on the Function of the European Union (TFEU); - food products listed in an annex to the draft regulation (including chocolate, bread, pastry products, pasta, salt etc), with the addition of cotton and sweetcorn; - spirit drinks and wine with protected geographical indications and also beer under certain conditions; - fishery and aquaculture products (but only in the framework of the promotion of several products at the same time).
On wine, the EP convinced the Council to include quality wines (under PDO and PGI) on the list for promotion campaigns sponsored by organisations from several countries. For single programmes, when campaigns are designed by one or more organisations from within a single country, wine can be included if bundled with other products (so-called basket approach).
National programmes. The national quality programmes (in the framework of the rural development programmes) can be eligible for the Community promotion measures in the framework of this regulation.
Indications of brands. Information provision and promotion measures must not be brand-oriented. However, the indication of a brand in promotion products will be possible under certain conditions (defined further in an implementing act in respect of the internal market rules). This provision is designed to open up further possibilities to improve the promotion of agricultural products.
Proposing organisations. In order to increase the number of programmes and to improve their quality, the range of beneficiaries has been extended. In addition to trade or inter-trade organisations and producer organisations in the EU, the entities eligible to apply for promotion funding now include, under certain conditions, other bodies of the agri-food sector.
Role of the member states. The member states will play an active role in assisting the proposing organisations in the preparation of their proposals at a national level. But once the projects have been submitted to the Commission, the proposals will have to be assessed at EU level. However, the Commission will provide appropriate information to the member states on all programmes proposed and selected. The Commission will have sole powers to select the programmes.
Lastly, the Council agreed to the EP's request to give the Commission new powers to restore normal market conditions in the event of crisis. The Commission will be authorised to launch campaigns at short notice to avoid disturbances on the market and the loss of consumer confidence, as in 2011, when Spanish cucumbers were wrongly blamed for causing an E. coli breakout in the EU. (LC)