Brussels, 22/03/2000 (Agence Europe) - As indicated in yesterday's EUROPE, p.8, the Agriculture Council president felt the results of this week's session were "very positive". Several decisions were taken, progress was made on other issues with the hope of decisions being taken once the European Parliament has given its views. The question of guaranteed prices for the 2000-2001 campaign has not yet been tackled. It is known, moreover, that they are very largely determined by the decisions already taken under reform of the CAP and Agenda 2000. The results of the debates on different points are as follows:
Sector of goods outside Annex I: The Council adopted conclusions that reflect the political consensus reached on Commission proposals aimed at operating targeted reductions in export refunds for processed products on the basis of the least sensitive agricultural raw materials in order to comply with the ceiling imposed by WTO (see EUROPE of 21 March, p.14). It is now up to the Parliament to give its opinion, which will allow the Commission to work on the details of the new system in consultation with the management committee.
School milk distribution: Pending the Parliament's opinion, the Council held a policy debate on the Commission proposal aimed at establishing cofunding of the programme by the Community and the Member States (50/50). A large majority of delegations said they were opposed to cofinancing: Spain, France, Austria, Finland, Belgium and Ireland were the most radical in their views. Some of them (Belgium, Italy, Great Britain) felt they could possibly accept optional cofinancing, if there were no other way to make savings. Only three delegations (Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) took a stance in favour of cofinancing. The delegations of the Scandinavian countries (Finland, Sweden and Denmark, supported by Belgium) requested that skimmed milk should be included in the list of products eligible for the programme, considering it old-fashioned to restrict the promotion of school milk to full fat milk.
Bananas: The Council was informed by Mr Fischler of the lack of progress in negotiations with third countries. The United States has not yet given its opinion on the European offer and the Council has invited the Commission to report to it again on the results of contacts to be followed up.
Food safety: On the basis of a questionnaire prepared by the Presidency, the Council held an indepth debate on the control aspects in the Commission's White Paper on food safety. The delegations were unanimous in stressing the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity whereby controls remain first and foremost under the authority of Member States. Majority guidelines were reached in favour of a horizontal legislative framework, harmonisation of control procedures, exchange of inspectors between Member States, common training programmes and transparency in Commission inspection reports, on the condition, however, that: a) these reports are published once the results of discussions with the Member States concerned have been integrated; b) information be presented in a way that is easily understood by consumers; c) interim reports are not published.
Italian State aid to sugar industry: The Council decided (FIN, DK and NL abstained) that State aid granted by the Italian government (via the company RIBS Spa) to an industry in the sugar-beet sector was compatible with the common market organisation, despite the negative decision by the Commission. Commissioner Fischler deplored this first ever situation that the Commission will be examining, without ruling out the possibility of taking action before the Court of Justice.
Furthermore, the Council noted intervention by delegations on: - market difficulties for citrus fruits (Italy); - the need for increased consistency between the CAP and cooperation policy with developing countries (Netherlands); - difficulties for the implementation of the directive on pollution by nitrates of agricultural origin (Netherlands).
During the working dinner, Commissioner Fischler presented to ministers the ideas envisaged by the Commission for earmarking, in the CAP budget, EUR 300 million during the years 2001 and 2002 to contribute to financing rebuilding in the Balkans and allocating negative receipts (resources from account clearance) to the general budget. The delegations expressed their concern in this connection. Some of them challenged the figure put forward and the method of this budgetary constraint, considering it unacceptable that CAP credits should be used as an element for adjustment. Opposition expressed by French Minister Glavany mainly results in the fear that reduction of credits would, at the end of the day, lead to cofinancing (EU and Member States budgets) of the CAP, something to which France is radically opposed. Spanish Minister Posada observed that the CAP will need additional funds for CMO reforms (fruit and vegetables, rice, olive oil).