Brussels, 12/02/2015 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 9 February, the Latvian Presidency submitted a new compromise text to the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) on certain elements in the proposal on organic farming. A Council compromise is required before June, without which, the European Commission will withdraw the text for the proposal. On 2 February, the SCA examined questions on non-authorised substance residue, imports and controls (see EUROPE 11246).
Scope. The Commission indicated that the possible withdrawal of the delegated act included in Article 2, could considerably complicate the procedure for amending the list of products covered by the regulation, given that in this case, it will need to go through co-decision procedure. An overwhelming majority of countries, Poland, Spain, Ireland, France, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Romania, Slovakia, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Belgium, Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic and Luxembourg, at the SCA spoke in favour of option 2 proposed by the presidency. The second option suggests to revert to the existing categories as defined in the existing Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. But in the past these categories led to uncertainties on whether some products were covered or not by the scope. The purpose of Annex I was to lift these uncertainties. The Presidency is therefore of the view that there could be some merit in keeping this list, in addition to the existing categories of products. A few countries, such as Italy and Portugal, indicated that they preferred option 1 because it would keep the initial spirit of the Commission's proposal, i.e. the Regulation should cover products both listed in the Annex I to the TFEU and in the (revised) Annex I to the current proposal. An important change would be made (see Article 2(b)) by covering also processed products intended to be used as food or feed. Italy and Spain emphasised that it was important to maintain a level of flexibility in the management of the scope of application, by delegating to the Commission, the possibility of amending the list of products covered. France, Luxembourg and Slovakia suggested to the Commission that it alone should have the possibility of adding products. Some countries, such as Sweden, Greece and others, said they would prefer an implementation act rather than a delegation act. Many other countries such as Germany, Czech Republic, Finland, Romania, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands etc. asked about the appropriateness of including sea salt in the list of products covered by Annex I. They do not consider it as an agricultural product.
Definition of a group of operators. The Commission pointed out that group certification would facilitate the emergence of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) specialising in organic farming. Group certification is the norm in third countries. The majority of countries (Ireland, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg etc.) were more in favour of option 3, presented by the Presidency (the definition of the group of operators was inspired by suggestions made by Germany). Certain countries, however, (Spain, Finland, Belgium etc.) thought that the threshold indicated (turnover of less than €4,000 for the agricultural product concerned) should be re-examined. Other countries (France, Austria, Poland, United Kingdom, Croatia etc.), however, preferred option 1 (different thresholds according to the sector), whilst recognising that the indicated thresholds should be discussed and adjusted by the experts. Some countries (Portugal, Romania, Greece, Sweden, etc.) said they preferred option 2 (farms of 5 ha and whose turnover is less than €25,000 a year).
General production roles. The Commission explained that the Latvian Presidency's proposal went beyond the status quo mentioned by the Council in December 2014 and which did not plan to exclude research centres from the obligation of having separate species (animals) or differentiated plant varieties in cases of mixed organic/non-organic farms. Ireland, Spain, France, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom etc. supported the Presidency proposal framing the organic/non-organic suggestion but with sometimes different positions on some of the details (this is expected to be settled at a technical level).
Conversion. On the question of extending the “retroactive” aspect of conversion, as suggested by the Presidency, the Commission deemed that control in this area would be difficult. The Commission also thought that the absence of a delegated act planned by the presidency could prove counter-productive. A lot of delegations (France, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Finland, Romania, Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Croatia, etc.) supported the Presidency position, even if they noted that they would need to clarify the guidelines on retroactivity for conversion.
Absence of specific production rules. The Commission again underlined the need for it to have a certain flexibility (delegated act). Some countries (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Croatia) supported the Presidency text granting the Commission a delegated act that would allow it to define the rules for products that had not been covered by such rules in the specific regulation. Other countries (France, Denmark, Romania, Sweden) were more in favour of defending the introduction of an implementing act.
Delegated acts. A majority of delegations (Spain, France and Germany, etc.) supported the Presidency proposal reducing the delegations of authority (delegated acts) for the Commission. A number of others, including Italy, considered, however, that it would be better if they maintained a certain flexibility in the text and did not get rid of any of the delegated acts. It should be pointed out that a compromise at the Council must be reached before June, without which the Commission will withdraw the text for the proposal. On 2 February it examined non-authorised substance residues, import and controls (see EUROPE 11246). (Lionel Changeur)