Brussels, 05/03/2015 (Agence Europe) - Differences emerged among EU experts on Monday 2 March in the areas of unauthorised substances and the scope of the proposal on organic farming.
The Latvian Presidency of the Council of the EU hopes to present a new compromise text in the near future so that the Council will be in a position to adopt its stance before the end of June.
The debate within the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) focused on the issues seen as “open”, after working group discussions.
Differences remain over the scope of the proposal. Some countries (France, Poland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Ireland, Croatia and Hungary) felt that the Presidency text, seeking to delegate to the Commission (delegated acts) solely the addition of products to the scope, was reasonable. Others, such as Sweden, Lithuania and Austria, remain opposed to any such delegation and consider that scope as an element of the basic text which can only be amended through the co-decision procedure. Still others (Germany, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands), not very keen on a delegated act, asked for the view of the Council legal department on the matter. The Council legal department expressed the opinion that, with delegated acts applying to “non-essential” elements, in this specific case with the list of organic products, the outer limit of “non-essential” has been reached.
With regard to groups of operators, the Presidency proposed that the criterion of turnover should apply, with a threshold of €15,000 to constitute a group of operators. However, the Commission suggested using “standard output”, which varies less between EU countries and which could also apply to third countries. Moreover, in the Commission's view, reference to “standard output” would ensure that it would, indeed, be small farms that will benefit from the notion of group (and group certification).
The positions of the countries varied widely. Some (including Poland, Bulgaria, Sweden and Finland) were against the turnover threshold. While some countries (Finland, Hungary, et al) felt the €15,000 threshold to be fine, others, like the United Kingdom, advocated a higher threshold and still others (including Germany and France) suggested a lower threshold. Other countries (Italy, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, et al) were of the opinion that greater room for manoeuvre had to be left to countries on whether or not they apply group certification. Lastly, Spain argued for compulsory and harmonised application of group certification. The notion of “standard output” proposed by the Commission was backed by a few countries (Portugal, the Netherlands and Romania).
With regard to the production rules on the rearing of animals, the Latvian Presidency proposal (maintaining the status quo) allows the possibility, in certain cases, of using certain practices, such as dehorning. A number of countries argued for allowing dehorning (France, the United Kingdom, Poland, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Belgium and others). Some countries, however, (Italy, Denmark, Austria, Germany and more) were against authorising other practices that may be considered mutilating (for example, tail docking, or removal of the beak) or that might not be in line with animal welfare.
Relative consensus looks to be forming on yeast used in food for human consumption, where continued use of 5% non-organic yeast looks set to be allowed, with the inclusion of a date beyond which use of non-organic yeast will no longer be possible. Only a few countries, notably Germany, were against the continuation of this rule on yeast.
The most sensitive issue in the SCA discussion and one which will most probably be discussed at the Council meeting on 16 March is Article 20 on the presence of unauthorised substances (pesticides). Several countries (France, Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands) supported a UK proposal that Article 20 should not be separate but should be considered as forming part of the monitoring provisions. Some countries, including Italy, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Belgium, backed the (Commission) idea of introducing a limit that would result in “declassification” if the threshold were exceeded. Others (Austria and Denmark) opposed any automatic downgrading.
Some countries indicated that they still had difficulty with issues the Presidency considers concluded, in particular with Article 7 on mixed farms. Some (France, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg) felt that, for permanent crops, in particular vines, reference must be made to “identifiable varieties” in cases of mixed organic/non-organic farms. This would allow the development of organic wines. Others, including Finland and Denmark suggested allowing the possibility of animals from non-organic sources grazing in organic fields. (Lionel Changeur)