Nyborg, 10/09/2002 (Agence Europe) - The informal meeting of European Agriculture Ministers devoted to innovation in the Common Agricultural Policy, organised on Tuesday in Nyborg by the Danish Presidency, showed without surprise that no Member State questions the importance and the interest of innovation in the agri-food sector (one of the engines for growth and dynamism on more open markets), but that opinions differ on the instruments that should be favoured and, above all, on ways to find additional financing. The candidate countries, which were invited to the meeting, were general in their remarks on the issue, and some of them seized this opportunity to recall their positions on the subject of accession negotiations. Commissioner Franz Fischler revealed that the Commission was reviewing the reference periods for establishing quotas and that it would examine the wish expressed by these countries to have the consequences of the Russian crisis and the years of drought on production volumes to be taken into account.
Council President Mariann Fisher Boel said during the final press conference that there was clear support in favour of innovation and recognition of the importance of introducing innovation into CAP. She specified that the majority of Member States felt the course set by the rural development programme was a foreseeable solution and welcomed the fact that the Commission, in her view, had pledged to ensure that SMEs enjoyed all the possibilities provided in the context of the current instruments. Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne insisted on the fact that one should not speak of innovation if no progress has been made in introducing new GMO authorisations and if no end has been put to the moratorium. As the new legislation (Framework Directive 2001/18) on the dissemination of GMOs is to take effect on 15 October, he urged Member States not to let themselves be bogged down and hinted that the regulatory committee could soon take up the tricky issue of the moratorium again. Mr Fischler recalled the three different instruments allowing promotion of research (framework programme for research, rural development programmes and Leader+ initiative).
During the debate between ministers, the Danish delegation suggested that the Commission should, for example, propose a new framework regulation on agricultural research that would come under the second pillar of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with projects that would be examined by scientists and which, once approved, would be financed by the Member States and the Community budget. Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany as well as the Danish delegation reaffirmed, as during the informal meeting in Murcia (see EUROPE of 1 May 2002), that they hoped to strengthen rural development policy and that there would be a transfer from the first to the second pillar of CAP, mainly for funding research projects. Other Member States such as France, Belgium, Greece and Spain insisted on the importance of research but repeated that the strengthening of rural development policy, including for encouraging innovation, should not be to the detriment of the first pillar. French national Hervé Gaymard affirmed that it might be useful if eventual new action in innovation in the CAP were to take a two-fold form: - to make projects meeting experimental needs (for example, quality at the local level to enhance locally-grown products) eligible in the context of rural development action; - and to support the development of non-food production (energy crops). Portuguese national Armando Sevinate Pinto recommended strengthening the second pillar in favour of innovation, but did not specify the financial arrangements. Speaking for Italy, Giovanni Alemanno said it was necessary to create areas between the different Directorates General to develop agricultural research projects, given that one cannot change the current framework programme.
Commissioner Franz Fischler recalled during the meeting that the Commission had already financed over 1000 agricultural research projects over the past ten years, but that this was not enough. He explained that agriculture was "an essential component" of the current framework programme for research but that, as agricultural research cannot be envisaged independently of the other research sectors, it has not been given its own heading and has been integrated into the different priority areas regarding research. He also recalled that, after the internal reorganisation of the Commission services, the DG Agriculture is no longer responsible for the management of scientific projects, no more than it still finances pilot projects. In order to make the best use of the possibilities provided by the sixth framework programme, he believes the coordination and the flow of information between Member States, Commission, trade operators and industry, producers and representatives of the different scientific disciplines should "function better". This is why the DG Agriculture has encouraged the Standing Agricultural Research Committee (SARC) to be actively involved and to give its active support.