Introduction by Mrs Lulling, President of the Intergroup (Luxembourg, EPP-ED)
This Intergroup meeting will focus on the transposition of the Wine CMO. This topic is particularly sensitive because it has become known through several national ministries (among them the French) that DG Agri is trying to introduce certain criteria into the transposition rules that have been rejected in the Wine CMO. We have to remain very vigilant on this.
Even though Mrs Sommer will not be able to speak on the Commission's proposal on labelling of foodstuffs, the Intergroup will follow the matter closely. The developments in the ENVI committee have to be followed in order to prevent amendments which would call into question the exclusion of alcoholic beverages from the regulation.
Finally, the supply of bottles to wine producers has become an issue in the wake of increases on the price of bottles. Moreover, market distortions and a lack of competition between the few producers of bottles worldwide have been observed. A question to the Commission on this issue has been tabled.
Mrs Anne Velluet Association générale des entreprises vinicoles (AGEV)
The calendar of the Wine CMO is gathering pace this year, after the political compromise in December 2007, the Regulation has been adopted by the Council on the 29th of April for an entry into force on the 1st of August 2008. The adoption of the transposition rules is foreseen for the end of June 2008 and for the 1st of August 2009.
The AGEV is quite satisfied with the compromise that has been reached. A lot of work has to be done though on the transposition rules, especially for labelling. On this issue, the AGEV advocates the use of European pictograms which would simplify the rules for producers.
The setting up of national envelopes remains a great step that is yet to be taken. At this stage, we notice that the resources of the national envelopes will increase dramatically after 2012, when market control mechanisms will cease to exist and thereby liberate extensive community funds for national envelopes.
For France, the national envelope will rise from 171 million Euros in 2009 to 280 million euros from 2013. France will define the priorities for financing at regional level, because the regions are the best placed to identify their needs.
The French priorities are threefold:
-Restructuring the vineyards: in order to be more competitive and more in tune with the market
- Investment aid: this priority is yet to be defined because of the need to distinguish investments made under the second pillar of the CAP (rural development) and the investments made under the Wine CMO in particular.
- Promotion in third countries: will concentrate a large part of national expenditure and will focus, in France's case, on three types of promotion:
§ collective promotion: managed on interprofessional level
§ associative promotion: managed on interprofessional level with several brands being able to take advantage of the knock-on effects
§ individual promotion: by businesses, by brands
The promotion of brands will be allocated the greatest part of the budget. As a reminder, these initiatives will only be awarded community financing by up to 50% of the eligible expenditure. Businesses will have to prove they have marketing strategies and a capacity for export. Financial support will allow them to consolidate their actions.
In Italy, the financial distribution of the national envelope will also be heavily dedicated to the restructuring of vineyards and to promotion in third countries. Italy also foresees to use a large part of its budget for the distillation and for alcohol, which will cause problems.
The figures for Spain are not quite known. Moreover, their negotiation method is different with negotiations with each professional family, which does not allow us to have a global view on the envisage distribution of finances at this stage.
Mr Pascal Bobillier Monnot Director of CNAOC (Confédération nationale des appellations d’origine contrôlée, France)
On the subject of national envelopes, CNAOC regrets that the entirety of community credits will be distributed at national level, creating the risk that Spain and Italy will use these credits for defensive policies and for distillation. The distribution of the entirety of the credits at national level will be catastrophic for drinking alcohol as we are heading for a saturation of the market for drinking alcohol.
Regarding the integration of the Wine CMO into the single CMO, the Commission announced in 2006 its willingness to maintain a specific CMO for wine. Even though discussions on the transposition rules are ongoing until the 1st of August 2009, it seems that the Commission has revised its position.
The commission announced its willingness to regroup all the different CMOs into a single CMO, with a single CMO integrating all the CMOs with the exception of those under review and modification, namely the CMO on fruit and vegetables (integrated since then) and the wine CMO.
The Commission now wants to integrate the wine CMO into the single CMO with the objective that the French Presidency should examine the proposal for entry into force on the 1st of August 2009. The hidden agenda of this proposal is that the Commission wants to avoid the codecision procedure with the European Parliament that would be introduced through the Lisbon Treaty.
This Commission proposal would lead to a dispersion of the articles related to the wine CMO in the text of the single CMO. Moreover, entire articles of the wine CMO will be divided in the single CMO. The integration into the single CMO will lead to the loss of the sector-specific approach.
Moreover, the proposal to integrate the wine CMO will not be made on an equal legal basis. This is very shocking. The political compromise that was negotiated by the Member States and Parliament would be integrated into the single CMO under an unequal legal basis. The Commission calls into question the powers of the management committee and plans to give itself the powers on several points like the transposition modalities on indications of origin and on traditional indications, as well as on labelling (i.e. regarding the origin of wines)
CNAOC opposes the integration of the wine CMO into the single CMO before the 1st of August 2009. CNAOC wants the Commission to wait for the reform of the CAP and of the single CMO to be completed before it should envisage the integration of the wine CMO. Finally, if the wine CMO were to be integration, CNAOC wants this to take place under an equivalent legal basis.
Intervention by Mr Johan Knoppers DG Agriculture, European Commission
Regarding transposition rules, the Commission proposal is only at the stage of preliminary texts circulating within the Commission services and will only be adopted in the coming months. It is therefore extremely difficult to comment on the final content of the text at this stage.
On the single CMO, the Commission sees it as a purely technical exercise with the objective to regroup all the CMO into a single text. This exercise is not meant to alter existing agreements.
Conclusions by Mrs Lulling President of the Wine Intergroup (Luxembourg, EPP-ED)
It is regrettable that the Commission wants to integrate the modifications on the wine CMO whereas it had recognised the specificities of the sector. Moreover, if measures were to be introduced that violate the political agreement reached in December 2007, which would be a very serious concern. Mrs Lulling insists that the management committees should be maintained and underlines the necessity to remain vigilant on these questions.
This Intergroup meeting will focus on the transposition of the Wine CMO. This topic is particularly sensitive because it has become known through several national ministries (among them the French) that DG Agri is trying to introduce certain criteria into the transposition rules that have been rejected in the Wine CMO. We have to remain very vigilant on this.
Even though Mrs Sommer will not be able to speak on the Commission's proposal on labelling of foodstuffs, the Intergroup will follow the matter closely. The developments in the ENVI committee have to be followed in order to prevent amendments which would call into question the exclusion of alcoholic beverages from the regulation.
Finally, the supply of bottles to wine producers has become an issue in the wake of increases on the price of bottles. Moreover, market distortions and a lack of competition between the few producers of bottles worldwide have been observed. A question to the Commission on this issue has been tabled.
Mrs Anne Velluet Association générale des entreprises vinicoles (AGEV)
The calendar of the Wine CMO is gathering pace this year, after the political compromise in December 2007, the Regulation has been adopted by the Council on the 29th of April for an entry into force on the 1st of August 2008. The adoption of the transposition rules is foreseen for the end of June 2008 and for the 1st of August 2009.
The AGEV is quite satisfied with the compromise that has been reached. A lot of work has to be done though on the transposition rules, especially for labelling. On this issue, the AGEV advocates the use of European pictograms which would simplify the rules for producers.
The setting up of national envelopes remains a great step that is yet to be taken. At this stage, we notice that the resources of the national envelopes will increase dramatically after 2012, when market control mechanisms will cease to exist and thereby liberate extensive community funds for national envelopes.
For France, the national envelope will rise from 171 million Euros in 2009 to 280 million euros from 2013. France will define the priorities for financing at regional level, because the regions are the best placed to identify their needs.
The French priorities are threefold:
-Restructuring the vineyards: in order to be more competitive and more in tune with the market
- Investment aid: this priority is yet to be defined because of the need to distinguish investments made under the second pillar of the CAP (rural development) and the investments made under the Wine CMO in particular.
- Promotion in third countries: will concentrate a large part of national expenditure and will focus, in France's case, on three types of promotion:
§ collective promotion: managed on interprofessional level
§ associative promotion: managed on interprofessional level with several brands being able to take advantage of the knock-on effects
§ individual promotion: by businesses, by brands
The promotion of brands will be allocated the greatest part of the budget. As a reminder, these initiatives will only be awarded community financing by up to 50% of the eligible expenditure. Businesses will have to prove they have marketing strategies and a capacity for export. Financial support will allow them to consolidate their actions.
In Italy, the financial distribution of the national envelope will also be heavily dedicated to the restructuring of vineyards and to promotion in third countries. Italy also foresees to use a large part of its budget for the distillation and for alcohol, which will cause problems.
The figures for Spain are not quite known. Moreover, their negotiation method is different with negotiations with each professional family, which does not allow us to have a global view on the envisage distribution of finances at this stage.
Mr Pascal Bobillier Monnot Director of CNAOC (Confédération nationale des appellations d’origine contrôlée, France)
On the subject of national envelopes, CNAOC regrets that the entirety of community credits will be distributed at national level, creating the risk that Spain and Italy will use these credits for defensive policies and for distillation. The distribution of the entirety of the credits at national level will be catastrophic for drinking alcohol as we are heading for a saturation of the market for drinking alcohol.
Regarding the integration of the Wine CMO into the single CMO, the Commission announced in 2006 its willingness to maintain a specific CMO for wine. Even though discussions on the transposition rules are ongoing until the 1st of August 2009, it seems that the Commission has revised its position.
The commission announced its willingness to regroup all the different CMOs into a single CMO, with a single CMO integrating all the CMOs with the exception of those under review and modification, namely the CMO on fruit and vegetables (integrated since then) and the wine CMO.
The Commission now wants to integrate the wine CMO into the single CMO with the objective that the French Presidency should examine the proposal for entry into force on the 1st of August 2009. The hidden agenda of this proposal is that the Commission wants to avoid the codecision procedure with the European Parliament that would be introduced through the Lisbon Treaty.
This Commission proposal would lead to a dispersion of the articles related to the wine CMO in the text of the single CMO. Moreover, entire articles of the wine CMO will be divided in the single CMO. The integration into the single CMO will lead to the loss of the sector-specific approach.
Moreover, the proposal to integrate the wine CMO will not be made on an equal legal basis. This is very shocking. The political compromise that was negotiated by the Member States and Parliament would be integrated into the single CMO under an unequal legal basis. The Commission calls into question the powers of the management committee and plans to give itself the powers on several points like the transposition modalities on indications of origin and on traditional indications, as well as on labelling (i.e. regarding the origin of wines)
CNAOC opposes the integration of the wine CMO into the single CMO before the 1st of August 2009. CNAOC wants the Commission to wait for the reform of the CAP and of the single CMO to be completed before it should envisage the integration of the wine CMO. Finally, if the wine CMO were to be integration, CNAOC wants this to take place under an equivalent legal basis.
Intervention by Mr Johan Knoppers DG Agriculture, European Commission
Regarding transposition rules, the Commission proposal is only at the stage of preliminary texts circulating within the Commission services and will only be adopted in the coming months. It is therefore extremely difficult to comment on the final content of the text at this stage.
On the single CMO, the Commission sees it as a purely technical exercise with the objective to regroup all the CMO into a single text. This exercise is not meant to alter existing agreements.
Conclusions by Mrs Lulling President of the Wine Intergroup (Luxembourg, EPP-ED)
It is regrettable that the Commission wants to integrate the modifications on the wine CMO whereas it had recognised the specificities of the sector. Moreover, if measures were to be introduced that violate the political agreement reached in December 2007, which would be a very serious concern. Mrs Lulling insists that the management committees should be maintained and underlines the necessity to remain vigilant on these questions.