Brussels, 20/12/2001 (Agence Europe) - During the Agriculture Council on Wednesday, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal presented a memorandum to the European Commission and to their colleagues. The memorandum makes an urgent appeal for the setting in place of a "true protein plan" within the EU, with, initially, continued aid to oilseeds at its 2001/02 level and the abolition of the set-aside obligation for high protein crops. Later, further measures will be rapidly decided such as the creation of a "safety net" for oilseed producers. During a press conference, Commissioner Franz Fischler, who had never shown himself to be insensitive to these arguments, repeated that the deficit in plant protein linked to the abolition of meat and bone meal could be filled by a 5% increase in imports. He also felt that: - the margin of budgetary manoeuvre was limited and that it was therefore necessary to be very careful about assessing priorities (giving further preference to the arable crop sector would deprive rural development of one part of the wealth); and returning to direct aid to oilseeds would result in moving further away from the objectives of Agenda 2000.
"By gradually bringing aid to oilseeds into line with the level of aid to cereals and by considerably reducing the level of aid to high protein crops, the Agenda 2000 led to additional deterioration of the European production potential for plant protein", wirite the six Member States in their joint document. They specify that the Community surface area for olseeds went from 5.585 jmillion hectares (ha) in 1993 to 4.985 million in 1999 and 4.504 million in 2001 (industrial freeze not included) and that the areas planted in protein crops were reduced 12% compared to 1993/94. Noting that the Community maximum guaratneed surface area of 5.484 million ha of oilseeds, linked to commitments taken by the Eurpeans in the context of the Blair House agreement with the Americans, is today "clearly under-used". They state that an approach "strictly based on a calculation of opportunity costs and comparison of budgetary costs is too restrictive". In their view, this argument, followed by the Commission in its communication on the options for the promotion of plant protein crops in the EU is obviously ill-adjusted compared to the situation caused by the ban on animal protein (in animal feed) and it is "politically unacceptable for a sector where the percentage of self-sufficienty production is below 25%".
These countries insist that a protein plan allowing increased diversity of supply sources would, given the specific nature of such cutlures, have a "beneficial effect on the environment" and "would allow a response to be given to European consumers regarding the traceability of products, mainly with respect to the problem of genetically modified organisms linked to imported soya cakes". They therefore call on the Commission to present "concrete proposals" while respecting the financial perspectives of Berlin. They recommend a five-point strategy: - high protein crops: "sufficient" increase in aid to "strengthen the attraction of these crops for producers, and authorisation to "grow protein crops on the set-aside land linked to the surface area declared in protein crops". The provision could be usefully extended to plant crops that should be ncluded in the system for aid to arable crops; - oilseeds: "moratorium" for continuing the aid in force in 2001/02, wihtout reducing it further from 72.37 to 63 euros/tonne equivalent in cereals in 2002 (as the Agenda 2000 foresees), pending the rendez-vous clause foreseen in Berlin for analysing the situation of the sector before 1 July 2002; - grain legumes: integration of all these productions in the large crop system by considerably increasing the current guaranteed growing area (400,000 ha) and by including new species in order to "safeguard biodiversity" of Mediterranean production, and the granting of enhanced aid to legumes for protein crops; - dried fodder: increase of maximum guaranteed quantity for artificially dried fodder and aid to sun-dried fodder; - safety net: the launching ogf studies in order to reach solutions allowing action to be taken on the "risk level" taken by the oilseed producer. Two possibilities are envisaged: (1) proection in relation to the trigger level calculated according to market factors (based on the American "marketing loan"); (2) for the longer term, insurance provisions (harvest insurance against climatic and health risks or income insurance), the arrangements for intervention by public authroities (direct for the producer under such a contract or with insurance firms) should also be discussed.