Brussels, 22/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 21 November, after a marathon of almost 900 amendments, the European Parliament agricultural committee managed to find some compromises on the majority of sensitive issues contained in the draft reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) for the wine sector. The EP agriculture committee adopted the report of Giuseppe Castiglione (EPP-ED, Italy) by a very large majority but introduced a large number of amendments to the Commission's initial proposal. It rejects automatic liberalisation of plantation rights in 2014; it reduces the period for vine grubbing from five to three years and gives its support to the chaptalization of wine (enrichment by adding sugar) and to aid for must. Members of this committee are rejecting the transfer of funds to rural development. The European Parliament will examine and vote on Mr Castiglione's report during the plenary session on 10-13 December in Strasbourg.
Plantation rights. The agriculture committee is opposed to the liberalisation of plantation rights from 1 January 2014 for wine protected by designations of origin and geographical indications. For other wine, the committee believes that the decision to liberalise should be taken in light of a study to be carried out at the end of 2012. On the other hand, parliamentarians are calling for the implementation of a free movement of plantation rights throughout the EU. This would enable competitive producers to freely respond to market signals.
Grubbing up. MEPs from the competent committee gave its support to the rapporteur's idea of reducing the period of the grubbing up programme from five to three years, while keeping the same bonus for grubbing up. The advantage would be to encourage winegrowers who wanted to, to withdraw from production as soon as possible. Funds decided on by the parliamentary committee are €510 million for 2009/10, €337m for 2010/2011 and €223m for 2011/2012 (as opposed to the initial proposal of €430m for 2008/09, €287m for 2009/10, €184m for 2010/11, €110m in 2011/12 and €59m in 2012/13).
Sugaring and grape must. The agriculture committee voted against (30 votes for, 5 against and 1 abstention) the Commission proposal to ban the chaptalization method in the future (addition of sugar to increase alcohol level in wine, in northern European areas). It is against the project aimed at getting rid of parallel aid to must (granted to producers in southern Europe to compensate the competitive disadvantages of must enrichment).
Potable alcohol. MEPs also want to keep aid for the distillation of potable alcohol that can be granted via national funding, in an effort to improve quality production.
Crisis prevention. Instead of current distillation crisis aid that the Commission would like to get rid of, MEPs are requesting that aid, in the guise of compensation, is implemented in the form of a payment in proportion to the reduction of grape or wine product reduction.
By-products of wine-making. For reasons of quality and environmental protection, the agriculture committee wants the compulsory collection and distillation of all winemaking by-products to be kept in the regulation. Only distillers should benefit from subsidies for this service, thus allowing a considerable reduction in Community intervention pay-outs. Under no circumstances may the alcohol obtained from such distillation be destined for human consumption..
Designations. The committee considers it essential that the production, including processing and preparation - and, where appropriate, refining and bottling - of "protected designation of origin" (PDO) wines and "protected geographical indication" (PGI) wines should take place in the geographical areas in question. They add that these areas may, in exceptional cases, correspond to the territory of a small member state.
Labelling. The committee does not support the proposal to allow the harvest year and wine grape variety and other traditional details to be indicated on labels for table wines, on the grounds that this option must be reserved for quality wines in order not to confuse consumers. However, MEPs believe it should be compulsory for the bottler's name and district to appear on the label of PDO and PGI quality wines.
Wine-making practices. The committee suggests a positive list of authorised wine-making practices and rejects the idea of transferring the power to authorise new practices from the Council to the Commission. It is also opposed to applying the wine-making practices of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine - which are less restrictive than those of the EU - to European wines intended for export.
National budgets and promotion. The committee proposes that national aid programmes should be used to finance promotional measures within the EU (and not only in third countries) as well as other measures such as restructuring the sector, crisis prevention, research and development and quality improvement, with producers being able to benefit from several measures in any marketing year.
Rural development. The committee is against redirecting part of spending previously allocated to the wine sector to rural development.
Cross-compliance. Since the regulation on cross-compliance of aid will apply to winegrowers as soon as they are subject to the single payment system, the committee is against specific rules involving reductions in restructuring and conversion aid or grubbing premiums being added to the regulation.
Implementation of the reform. The committee considers that the timetable suggested by the Commission - i.e. 1 August 2008, the opening date for the next marketing year - is unachievable, in particular as member states have to set up their national programmes beforehand. It therefore suggests that this date should be deferred until 1 August 2009 (to provide the time needed for elaborating national programmes). (LC)