Brussels, 24/01/2007 (Agence Europe) - On the invitation of the European Parliament's agriculture committee to present the German presidency's priorities for the first half of the year, Horst Seehofer, the German minister for food, agriculture and consumer protection, said on Tuesday 23 January, that he was against the “annual questioning of the Common Agricultural Policy” (CAP). He said he wanted a “reliable” and coherent CAP, though reflection on the future of the sector after 2013 should begin right now (see also EUROPE 9345). In addition, he said he hoped to find a compromise with MEPs on the very controversial proposal on the voluntary modulation of aid.
Cutting red tape: Mr Seehofer acknowledged that reducing the administrative burden “is a very complicated task, because it is easier to adopt paragraphs than get rid of them”. Farmers were not against controls or rules, but what annoyed them was “when the controls and the red tape become very convoluted,” he said.
Investing in the future of rural spaces: the minister pointed out that over 50% of the European population lived in rural areas and he felt that these rural spaces had to remain “dynamic and creative” places, and not simply become “dormitories for big towns”. To give young people prospects for the future, the EU must not think only in terms of the CAP, but should also, for example, use the possibilities offered by the energy policy. Young farmers believed in the future of the production of renewable raw materials, Mr Seehofer argued, but he, nonetheless, warned against making the same mistakes as in the past. He said it was necessary to carefully consider the economic advantages of these energy products without forgetting about soil protection, and to avoid the massive industrialisation of this production.
Common Agricultural Policy: “We need to show confidence in farmers and avoid always carrying out and announcing the reform of the reform” of the agricultural sector. The reliability of the CAP was, in Mr Seehofer's opinion, the cement for investment. “If we create new conditions all the time, farmers could stop investing because they will have no belief in the future,” he said, adding that this guarantee of reliability must not, after the health check and the mid-term review of the EU budget (in 2008-2009), prevent the EU from reflecting on “what needs to be done for the CAP after 2013”. He said he would be delighted to settle the issue of the voluntary modulation scheme as quickly as possible. This scheme derives form the European Council agreement of December 2005 on the 2007-2013 financial perspective package. In addition, Mr Seehofer said that he backed the Commission's proposal on the creation of a single common market organisation (CMO) and pointed out that the EU was due to adopt the reform of the fruit and vegetable and wine sectors in 2007. On the CMO wines and spirits, "it would be a very good thing if we could have the legislative proposal towards the end of Presidency". He added that Community funds should, as a priority, be used for measures designed to improve the competitiveness of the sector, rather than for the management of surpluses.
Lutz Goepel (CDU) asked how the Presidency intended to organise the work needed to simplify the rules under the CAP, particularly that on the eco-conditionality of aid (making the granting of aid conditional on the observation of environmental, animal welfare and product quality criteria). He said that he hoped that a solution could be found to make it easier to verify that this principle was being observed. On the idea of having an optional modulation, "we are all prepared to seek a solution, but as long as it is not unilateral", Mr Goepel warned, calling on the Commission to move towards the EP's position on this. Katerina Batzeli (PES, Greece) raised the problem of job losses in rural areas and the integration of young people in the agricultural sector. She defended the current position of the EP against going down the optional road. Niels Busk (ALDE, Denmark) also stressed the problems raised by the implementation of eco-conditionality in the 27 Member States. He was extremely sceptical about the idea of creating a single CMO. "It is not enough to put all the rules on the same box. If provisions can be got rid of, then we must get rid of them", said Mr Busk. Sergio Berlato (UEN, Italy) voiced his opinion that the EU was not doing enough to make young people want to become or remain farmers. Jean-Claude Martinez (National Front) described the future of the countrymen and women of Europe as a "square" which could either be "magic or tragic": - the future of the wine growers; - that of the farmers at the WTO (he believes that, taking account of its partners' demands, the EU is running the risk of going beyond the offer of July 2006 to reduce customs duties by 51%); - the financial future (the risk that the budget under the CAP, which has been enshrined by the European Council until the end of 2013, may come under fire in 2008-2009); - the future of the CAP (post-2013, what will happen about milk, sugar, stock-raising, well-being...). British Conservative member Neil Parish welcomed the commitments of the Presidency in favour of bio-mass and bio-fuels. He also criticised the proposed optionality. Albert Jan Maat (EPP-ED, Netherlands) suggested that the Presidency take position in favour of delaying the examination of plans for optionality until 2009. He also urged the Commission to agree to a poultry vaccination programme, in order to prevent any further outbreaks of bird flu in Europe.
In response to questions from the MEPs, Mr Seehofer took position in favour of scaling down control procedures in checking the eco-conditionality criteria. He stated that a working group had been set up between the Commission at the Council to deal with this dossier, and which will report back in March, with a view to concrete measures in April or May. Lastly, he showed determination to take the opinion to be returned by the EU on the rules for the production and labelling of organic products extremely seriously, and voiced his own scepticism at the usefulness of adding new requirements in the field of labelling. It is worth noting that Germany is opposed to the text detailing an obligatory EU logo for products containing at least 95% of organic ingredients (EUROPE 9331). (lc)