Strasbourg, 15/02/2007 (Agence Europe) - In Strasbourg on Thursday 15 February, the European Parliament came out in favour of gradual reform of the wine sector. It opposed in particular the European Commission plan, set out in a communication of June 2006, to grub-up 400,000 hectares of vineyards and for the immediate removal of market management instruments, such as Community aid for distillation of wine. The Parliament approved the report by Katerina Batzeli (PES, Greece) by 484 votes to 129, with 24 abstentions. Only a few minor amendments were brought in by the plenary session. In June the European Commission will present its legislative proposal for reform, which should be implemented from July 2008, after the agreement of the Council and consultation of the EP. Here are the main thrusts of the EP stance on the wine reform:
Grubbing-up: the permanent abandonment of wine-growing “must not be the centrepiece of the CMO reform”, the EP says. It wants to avoid grubbing-up in mountainous, coastal and island regions. However, low yield, poorer quality of wine or wine growers retiring, the Parliament says, could be incentives to permanent abandonment. Liberalisation of new planting rights (which the Commission would like to see introduced rapidly) should be gradual and transparent to avoid any uncontrolled expansion of EU winegrowing potential having a negative impact on the market, MEPs say, adding that these rights should be made available first to young farmers and to owners of quality productions.
Management measures: the EP supports getting rid of public stocks of alcohol, but is against the immediate removal of the distillation mechanism and other market support measures. It recommends a transition period allowing the gradual reduction in the sums of money given to market intervention measures, and strengthening aid for the improvement of the quality and marketing of European wines. During the transition period, corresponding to the first stage of the reform (2008-2011), the EP says it would be useful to reduce the current four distillation measures to two: compulsory distillation, which will act as a safety net and allow gradual reorganisation of the market, and voluntary distillation of wine alcohol. It proposes to reduce the budgetary cost of the distillation of by-products by allowing alternative uses of alcohol, such as in liqueurs and argues for a new crisis management mechanism in specific, serious and real emergencies.
Wine making practices: the EP opposes the Commission plan to ban adding sugar since that would discriminate against member states situated in regions of the EU where wine growing is more difficult because of less favourable climatic conditions. In addition; in adopting an amendment by the rapporteur, the EP deemed that aid for must and concentrated rectified must had to be retained because they preserve a historical oenological practice. The EP wants to retain the ban on wine production, from imported must and its being mixed with Community must.
Labelling: the use of oenological practices not authorised in the EU (such as the use of chips of wood) must be clearly indicated on the labels of imported drinks, MEPs say, and they also call for better protection of protected geographical indications and protected designations of origin as part of the WTO negotiations and bilateral agreements. They called for harmonisation of member states' regulations on the languages to be used on labels (to avoid the unnecessary translation of similar terms). The EP also called for properly funded specific action to promote the quality of European wine on the world market and an external trade policy which is proactive and ambitious. In terms of budget, the EP rejected the amendment from Carmen Fraga Estevez (EPP-ED, Spain) calling for national financial packages to be shared according to historical criteria.
During the debate, Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she regretted that the report criticised her for “not paying sufficient homage to the image of European wines”. She defended herself, stating that the EU produced the best wine in the world and that this wine was an important part of “our cultural heritage”. But things had to change, because parts of the sector were struggling, she pointed out. She condemned the millions of hectolitres which went into crisis distillation every year and excess production which brought price reductions for many wines and losses for farmers. She defended her plan for (voluntary) grubbing-up of 400,000 hectares of vineyards. She said, however, that, when bringing forward the legislative proposal (in summer) she would bear in mind the suggestions of the EP on social and environmental criteria to be considered before ordering the abandonment of production. Ms Fischer Boel noted the Parliament's position backing a two-stage reform of the sector (2008-2011, then 2012-2015). She said she agreed that there had to be a first stage to sort out supply and demand problems which had a great effect on the market. She also stated that the EP had shown a strong preference for the retention of the wine budget in Pillar 1 (direct aid and market spending) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). She said that, “your position on this issue rests on a false perception that I want to shift considerable funds away from Pillar 1” towards rural development. “That is not the case,” she added. She said that she also shared the EP's opinion on efforts to be made at Community level to promote European wines abroad. Finally, she said she had found the EP “a little more timid”, than she had ever been used to on enrichment (the use of saccharose and aid for must), distillation and private storage.
Ms Batzeli stressed the importance of improving the competitiveness of the sector and balancing the market by making informed use of the various distillation measures. She said it was essential to have our quality wines recognised and protected. On oenological practices, an agreement had to be found which complied with the practices of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). Ms Batzeli also criticised the priority given by the Commission to grubbing-up. “It is not through grubbing-up that we are going to save the sector,” she claimed. Speaking for the EPP-ED, German MEP Elisabeth Jeggle (CDU) acknowledged that the reform was necessary, but without transferring funds to rural development. She felt it was up to member states (and not the Commission) to pilot and monitor grubbing-up schemes. In addition, she said that she was against the ban, sought by the Commission, on the use of saccarose to enrich wine. Spaniard Rosa Miguélez Ramos, speaking for the PES, said she agreed with Ms Fischer Boel's diagnosis of the market problems (there could be as much as 15% excess production by 2011). Her group, therefore, agreed that the common market organisation (CMO) had to be reformed, but felt that grubbing-up should not be central to changes to be made in the sector. She proposed a structural adjustment instrument to be monitored by member states, retention of the current budget in Pillar 1 and sharing of these funds in national packages. Frenchwoman Anne Laperrouze, for the ALDE group, spoke a paradoxical reality: “world consumption is increasing and yet the European sector is in crisis”. She attacked the Commission for responding coldly to wine growers' expectations with “massive grubbing-up, liberalisation of planting rights and removal of distillation mechanisms”. She also called for market regulation and potential crisis management tools. Jean-Claude Martinez, speaking for the ITS group, denounced the grubbing-up of 400,000 hectares, “The most violent in the whole of the wine-making history of the world, since you have to go back to the emperor Domitian in 92AD to find the same thing”. (lc)