Brussels, 23/10/2014 (Agence Europe) - At the meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) on Monday 20 October, many delegations from the member states challenged the choices made by the European Commission in its amending letter regarding the financing details for the measures to attenuate the effects of the Russian ban on EU agricultural products.
The amending letter provides for the measures taken to support the fruit and vegetables and dairy sectors hit by the Russian ban to be paid for out of the agricultural crisis reserve in the 2015 budget. Given the amount earmarked for this crisis reserve, that will leave a residual envelope of €88 million for 2015.
At the SCA, a strong contingent of countries questioned the choices proposed by the Commission. Many delegations (Spain, Finland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Austria and others) lamented the fact that agriculture is ultimately obliged to pay for the consequences of a political crisis. France, Romania and Belgium even went as far as to say that the producers will have to pay twice: they are paying for the consequences of a diplomatic crisis and their direct aid (which is linked to the use of the crisis reserve) will be affected. Many countries (among them Spain, Ireland, Slovakia, Finland and Latvia) questioned how it will be possible to fund any additional measures, or even measures aiming to limit the effects of the crisis. Germany and Luxembourg, amongst others, argued that if additional measures prove necessary, these should be paid for out of the margins provided for in heading 2 (agriculture). Many countries (including France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Denmark and Slovenia) questioned the procedure followed by the Commission which, having proposed using the margins in heading 2, finally opted to make use of the crisis reserve in the 2015 budget.
In a press release, Copa-Cogeca also hit out at the European Commission's plans to trim agricultural expenditure heavily in 2015, “when EU farmers and agri-cooperatives are being hit by the crisis caused by the Russian ban on farm exports”.
Spending less for fruit and vegetables. The EU countries had until 22 October to notify their requests for aid under the first support plan (€125 million) in favour of perishable fruit and vegetables. Readers may recall that this programme was suspended because the budget was very quickly exceeded (€175 million, including €146 million for Poland) due to excessively high Polish applications for apples. The figures notified are believed to show that real expenditure, following verification by the countries, is in the region of €55 million. The second perishable fruit and vegetables aid plan has a budget of €165 million. The real expenditure incurred will be announced in January 2015. Both of these plans will be funded out of the agricultural crisis reserve.
General meeting of the OIV. This subject was very briefly discussed at the SCA. After several years of recurrent legal issues over how to determine the EU's position at the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV), it appears that the problem is (finally) about to be resolved. With the support of the legal services of the Council, the Commission was of the opinion that the EU's position should be determined by a Council decision prepared upstream of the general meetings of the OIV, because certain resolutions taken by the organisation (of which not all EU member states are members) have an impact on the Community acquis. The Commission took the view that this called for the application of article 218.9 of the treaty, establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the EU by means of a Council decision. Germany and various other countries (Portugal, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) felt that this was not the right legal basis and opposed the procedure. Germany ended up bringing the Council before the Court of Justice of the EU over the matter. Germany lost the case on 7 October, when the Court confirmed that article 218.9 of the Treaty was indeed the correct legal basis. This means that everybody is now 'back on board' and a Council decision will establish the EU's position at the OIV for certain resolutions. (LC)