Brussels, 08/06/2015 (Agence Europe) - The experts on the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA), meeting on Friday 5 June, were unable to make progress in organic farming negotiations.
The troubles of EU agriculture ministers are not yet over, therefore, with regard to this issue. The Latvian Presidency is hoping that the Council, which meets in Luxembourg on 16 June, will agree a general approach.
It would even appear that the new Latvian Presidency's proposal met more opposition from the SCA experts than the previous compromise that was discussed in Riga (see EUROPE 11326). The main cause of the opposition is the addition of the paragraph on national procedures on unauthorised substances (26.1.c), with the other stances in line with the points of view expressed in previous debates.
Voluntary (non-compulsory) setting of thresholds. Many countries felt that the addition of point 26.1.c (allowing countries to apply existing national standards for unauthorised substances until 2021) raised a number of problems both of form and of substance. Some delegations, such as those of Italy and the Czech Republic, suggested that these provisions would bring differences between countries and thus fly in the face of the goal of the proposal, which is harmonisation. In similar vein, for some countries (including Germany, Denmark and Austria), allowing national rules to be re-introduced could be an impediment to the single market. Others, such as France, Belgium and Romania, pointed out that restricting the application of national standards to organic products in the country concerned could create problems with regard to imported products and organic products from other member states.
Still on unauthorised substances (Article 26), several countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Ireland, Croatia, Slovenia and others) repeated their desire to respect the wishes of consumers, who take the view that organic products should, as a matter of principle, contain no banned substances, independently of the producers' responsibility on contamination. These countries would like to see thresholds brought in with a view to “de-certifying” organic products contaminated by pesticides or herbicides.
At the other end of the spectrum, some others, including Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, restated that they would reject any reference to a threshold.
Monitoring. On the issue of the frequency of checks, several delegations (Italy, France, Czech Republic, Belgium, Romania and Hungary) said they would be willing to agree to a derogation to the (current) rule of one annual on-site check and accept one check every two years for low-risk farms (it would be for the Commission to set the criteria for “low risk” by means of a delegated act or an implementing act).
However, for those countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland, that favour risk-based monitoring (proposed by the Commission and implying the end of annual on-site checks), the compromise of a check every three years for low-risk farms is acceptable but they oppose checks every two years.
A new compromise text will be put to agriculture ministers and discussed by them at their meeting in Luxembourg on 16 June. It looks like being a tough task to be able to agree a general approach and open talks with the European Parliament. (Lionel Changeur)