Brussels, 30/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - The agriculture ministers of EU Member States were divided, in Brussels on Monday, over the need to foresee risk and crisis management measures in the agricultural sector. France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Hungary adopted an ambitious stance (see EUROPE 8956 on their memorandum on this subject) unlike others, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden or the Netherlands, who were clearly reticent about creating new mechanisms in this field. Given the lack of a clear Council mandate on the subject, Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel was not over-zealous to present proposals on the matter. The president of the Agriculture Council, Fernand Boden, gave the Council conclusions on the crisis management dossier. He explained above all that a large majority of delegations support the approach of the Commission, which does not intend to propose the general introduction of a “security clause” in all common market organisations (CMOs). The Commission nonetheless agrees to carry out a case-by-case examination of the need to foresee a safety net in some CMOs, mainly for fruit and vegetables and wine, Mr Boden added. Other measures for managing over-supply crises will be examined.
As far as the possible public financing of crisis management measures is concerned, delegations' positions differ and, according to Mr Boden, there is no clear Council majority in favour of the suggestions put forward by the Commission which, for its part, recommends that a percentage point of modulation should be used (reduction of agricultural subsidies and then transfer of the funding saved to rural development policy). The tools eligible for risk management must comply with the provisions of the guidelines on State aid in the agricultural sector, ministers stress.
Member States differ when it comes to the three options presented by the Commission (financial participation in insurance premiums, support to the agricultural mutualisation funds, and basic coverage against income crises). Mr Boden nonetheless noted broad consensus when it comes to the conditions essential for implementing the new instruments: - introduction of new tools and financial rules must not endanger the functioning of existing instruments at national level, for example, insurance against natural disasters; - new measures must comply with the “green box” criteria defined by the WTO; - public financing may be indispensable in the same way as a financial contribution by farmers (joint responsibility). Furthermore, delegations expressed appreciation of the possibility provided to finance continuous training measures for farmers on ways to best manage crises.
During the debate, France said the options put forward by the Commission do not provide any answers to the various crisis situations. It called for the product promotion rules to be made more flexible in times of crisis and for measures to be foreseen in the fruit and vegetable sector. Regarding financing, it recalled that it foresaw an additional financial solution (other than modulation): - a certain percentage, for example 0.1%, of farm production of each Member State. Italy supported the French position, and Giovanni Alemanno called on the Commission to assume its role by presenting concrete proposals. Spain said the crisis management measures should not replace the measures foreseen in the first pillar of CAP (agricultural market spending). For Germany, it is necessary to wait for the effect of CAP reform before foreseeing new crisis management measures. One should not distance oneself from the spirit of CAP reform, British Minister Margaret Beckett warned. Several new Member States regretted the lack of funding possibilities, as the principle of modulation of farm aid does not concern them.