Brussels, 05/07/2007 (Agence Europe) - There was general satisfaction among MEPs on the agriculture committee on Wednesday 4 July over the objectives of the reform of the wine sector. Some, however, complained about some of the changes called for by the European Commission, such as the massive grubbing-up of vines, the withdrawal of market management mechanisms, the liberalisation of planting rights after 2013 and the ban on adding sugar to enrich the wine. The EP agriculture committee intends to adopt its report on wine in January 2008 (there will be a hearing of experts on 12 September), and the report will then be debated and voted on by the EP in its plenary session in February 2008.
Presenting her proposal to the agriculture committee, Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she had finally opted for “a two-step approach as recommended by the European Parliament” in the own initiative report by Katerina Batzeli (PES, Greece), which was adopted in February 2007 (see EUROPE 9367). Initially, priority would be given to structural reform, followed by the second-phase implementation of a regime which would allow the sector to improve its competitiveness in a sustainable manner. She then defended her plan to remove aid for distillation saying that there were “better ways of spending €500 million annually”. She also stressed that the 200,000 hectares of vines to be grubbed up were an estimate of the hoped-for outcome, and not a binding target. Ms Fischer Boel also said she had introduced safeguards to enable member states to restrict grubbing up in mountain areas, on steep slopes and in ecologically sensitive areas. She added that she had “listened to the EP, member states and wine-growers' representatives” who were loudly demanding measures to promote wine (the Commission is proposing €120 million per year for promoting wine in third countries). A further innovation was that all areas under vines would be eligible for entitlements for the single farm payment, not only grubbed-up areas.
EP rapporteur on the legislative reform proposal Giuseppe Castiglione (EPP-ED, Italy) acknowledged that the Commission had taken account of the European Parliament's opinion on the reform of the wine sector. “We need a reform that looks beyond national and local issues. We are overproducing and consumption is falling, but export figures are encouraging. We must invest in the sector and boost competitiveness,” he said. He added that the halving, from 400,000 hectares to 200,000 hectares, of the desired area of vineyards to be grubbed up had “eased” MEPs' concerns. Mr Castiglione said that several aspects of the proposal would have to be thoroughly debated over the coming months. These include the ban on adding sugar to enrich the wine, the removal of aid to grape must, the removal of distillation aid “which raises environmental concerns”, wine-making practices and the allocation of EU funding among member states. Mr Castiglione also said that the new labelling rules “must not sow confusion in consumers' minds”.
Elisabeth Jeggle (EPP-ED, Germany) said she felt the Commission proposal was “disappointing”. She regretted the proposal's lack of ambition in terms of improving the quality of wines and sales promotion. She was also unhappy with the criteria to be used for allocating funding. The “historical principle” favoured by the Commission ran counter, she said, to the new conditions in the enlarged EU, since it rewarded those member states which produce a surplus for the purpose of distillation. The liberalisation of planting rights from 2014 “does not at all take into account climatic, geographical and socio-cultural conditions in the European wine sector,” she added. Katerina Batzeli said that her group, the PES, did not support the full liberalisation of vine planting rights after 2013 and listed those Commission proposals that would have to be debated in the Parliament: - the transfer of resources from the first pillar of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) (direct aid and market measures) to the second pillar (rural development); - the immediate scrapping of distillation schemes; - the immediate ban in the enrichment of wine and, at the same time, the abolition of aid for grape must; - and the new classification of wines. Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PES, Spain) said she believed that retaining the current budget for the sector was “good news”, bur she wondered about the consequences of introducing single payment schemes and the criteria for allocating EU funding to member states.
Niels Busk (ALDE, Denmark) voiced fears about the impact on spirit producers of the disappearance of distillation aid. Balance between the North and the South of Europe would be pivotal to the reform, said Lutz Goepel (EPP-ED, Germany). Like others, Ioannis Gklavakis (EPP-ED, Greece) said he believed that the transfer of funding from the first to the second CAP pillar was not a good idea.
Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL, Portugal) said she feared the consequences of the reform on small producers (and cooperatives) and she maintained that the new wine-making practices “do not fit with our traditions” which were “essential” for the preservation of quality products, such as port. Vincenzo Aita (GUE/NGL, Italy) protested strongly against the grubbing up of 20,000 hectares of vines, which, he said, could result in the loss of 71,000 jobs in Europe.
Christine de Veyrac (EPP-ED, France) advised caution and vigilance in reading the Commission's proposal which, she said: - said nothing about grubbing up illegal plantations; - was contradictory (full liberalisation of planting rights, after requiring massive grubbing up of vines); - would lead to the end of consumers being able to identify quality wines (because of the harmonisation of labelling for all categories of wine); - scheduled the end of distillation (when it was a way of getting rid of unsold wines). “When a vine is grubbed up, villas and housing estates are planted. Why do that when the world needs wine?” asked Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS, France).
In the opposite corner, British Conservative Neil Parish would have liked the Commission to have gone further in reforming the sector. “Europe needs to produce less, but higher quality, wine. I am disappointed to see the Commission has watered down proposals to encourage more producers to grub up,” he said. He opined too that the overall EU wine budget should probably be reduced. (lc)