Luxembourg, 23/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 22 October, ministers for agriculture from EU member states once again displayed a range of differences concerning reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO), two months from the deadline set by the Portuguese presidency and European Commission for concluding an agreement. The Commission appears to want to wait till the last moment to announce concessions on the most controversial subjects of the reform, such as abolition of the planting rights system from 2014, the phasing out of chaptalisation, as well as measures that can be funded from national budgets allocated to member states.
Mariann Fischer Boel, the commissioner for agriculture, appeared prepared, however, to water down her vine grubbing proposal on 200,000 hectares of vine in exchange for bonuses paid to farmers (€1.2bn over five years). During a press conference she stated: “If there can be a compromise on a lower figure, because some countries only want 150,000 hectares, I'll go with it”. She also appeared open to the idea (of the European Parliament rapporteur) of reducing the period from five to three years in which wine producers can receive bonuses in exchange for grubbing vines. During the Council, certain countries, such as Italy, stressed the fact that if the period for opening up the bonus centres is reduced, the volume of grubbing vines will equally be reduced.
Fischer Boel said that she was optimistic about the chances of reaching a compromise by the end of the year, “We've got all the elements needed for a final compromise” even if “it isn't easy obtaining it”. The Portuguese minister of agriculture, Jaime Silva, was more circumspect: “There are still big differences between us at the Council” he said, adding: “We're looking at a complicated puzzle with pieces of it spread around”.
According to Michel Barnier, the French minister of agriculture, “there are a lot of holes in the puzzle”. He said that he did not perceive any “positive progress in this debate”. Barnier said that the Commission had to “shift” if it wanted to obtain an agreement at the end of the year. The French minister said that it had to present a “reasonable and pragmatic” compromise proposal and “listen more to member states”. He also pointed out that “the main point for us is to preserve a regulation for planting rights…We will not accept the de-regularisation of planting rights and the risk of provoking further over-production”. Barnier also asked for “the preservation of the crisis distillation tool”, a measure that would be funded out of the national envelope allocated to each country.
National envelopes. Many member states requested the extension of the list of measures that could be financed out of funding from these envelopes. The initial proposal included green harvesting, vineyard re-conversion, promotion in third countries and insurance against natural disasters. France is insisting on the maintaining of the distillation system (in the event of an economic crisis); Spain is requesting direct aid to enable producers adapt to the new market, as well as funding for environmental and quality improvement programmes (to compensate the possible elimination of wine deliveries). Italy is requesting sector restructuring measures, the promotion of new production techniques and supply targeting measures. A few delegations that are less enthusiastic about the suggestions drew the attention of the Council to the need to verify the compatibility of these measures with the World Trade Organisation's “green box” (where the effects of aid on trade are nil or minimal). Several delegations, notably some of the new member states, asked for the allocation of resources to guarantee equal treatment among all countries.
Transfer of the first to second pillar. Most member states opposed the Commission's proposal to transfer a significant part of CMO resources to rural development.
Decoupled payments. The majority of countries do not want to keep this option as compensation for the abolition of chaptalisation.
Chaptalisation. A significant majority want to reject the Commission proposal to ban chaptalisation (addition of sugar to the wine). Germany has made this a question of principle and will not give up this method. France has a conciliatory position on this subject and would like to promote a compromise solution. France says technical measures exist for reducing the rates of sugar enrichment (margins), without having to give up the chaptalisation technique.
Grubbing-up. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom backed the suggested programme for grubbing up 200,000 hectares. Other countries, like France, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Hungary, see the usefulness of grubbing-up as long as its scope is restricted in certain sensitive areas. Another group of countries (including Italy, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic) is distinctly hostile to the grubbing-up programme.
After the ministers' debate, Commissioner Fischer Boel made the following remarks: 1) national envelopes should allow member states to choose the solutions best adapted to their specific wine-making needs and should not be disguised ways of re-introducing tools which have already demonstrated their inability to make the industry more competitive; 2) the amount of national funding is a Pandora's box which should not be re-opened; 3) the grubbing-up programme is an offer made to producers wanting to make a dignified exit from the industry, but the Commission is open to any other constructive proposal in terms of the duration and scale of the programme. (L.C.)