Fuente: © European Union
http://europa.eu.int

EU: Mariann Fischer Boel Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentAnnual Policy Strategy for Agriculture

Speech to the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament

/noticias.info/ Brussels, 6 May 2008

Chairman, dear Committee members,

Thank you for inviting me to the Committee today. I am here to discuss with you the political priorities for agriculture in the Annual Policy Strategy for 2009. There are certainly a number of important legal proposals to be dealt with in 2009. With a view to broadening our political dialogue, I would however also like to discuss some current and upcoming issues that are strictly speaking not in the APS, but which need our full attention.

As a start I want to mention the follow up on the APS 2008, which I presented to you exactly one year ago[1]. I will go into detail on two major dossiers, namely the School Fruit Scheme and the Green Paper on Quality Policy. However, there are other issues from the APS 2008 where we are well on track to finalise it this year, for example the finalisation and implementation of the wine reform and on cotton support. And of course also the Health Check. Overall, I am confident that we will deliver in time on our promises made in the APS 2008.

Let us first discuss turn to an issue related to health – but this time not the health of our policy but the health of our kids and youngsters.

One of the key aims of the Fruit and Vegetables reform is to increase its consumption in the European Union. At the same time, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of overweight and obese children. This prompted Parliament and Council to ask the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a school fruit scheme.

How the scheme exactly will look depends on the conclusions of an assessment, which looks at the feasibility of different options for EU intervention. We have carried out a wide-ranging consultation round with the stakeholders and we have studied existing Member State schemes. I want to have an EU action with a clear added value, and that will be a guiding principle behind the proposal we will present.

As well as providing new, sustainable outlets for EU fruit and vegetable producers, an EU School Fruit Scheme would have real implications for the long-term health of Europe’s citizens. Scientific evidence points to the dietary importance of fruit and vegetables, in particular to address obesity and its alarming increase among school children.

The Impact Assessment report is now nearing completion and I will present it to the Commission in July together with a proposal. With your cooperation, and I count on that, I hope that the Council can adopt the proposal this November.

In October 2008 we will launch the Green Paper on agricultural product quality policy. The consultation with the public and with stakeholders will therefore open towards the end of 2008.

I hope that the Parliament will contribute to kick-start this debate. Let me set out some of the themes:

Firstly, we need to give greater recognition to the efforts made by EU farmers. They follow the highest production standards in the world for hygiene and safety, traceability, animal welfare and environment. But we must make consumers more aware of these efforts.

Secondly, the EU scheme for Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) will be under the spotlight. I look forward to an in-depth debate.

Thirdly, as you know, we have done a lot of work on certification schemes that operate largely in the private sector. An important question is to what extent any EU action is needed.

I am aware that there are some candidates for new EU-level certification schemes, for example covering animal welfare and environmental claims. I do not exclude new EU schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, but only where there are strong arguments and where existing certification schemes are not up to the task.

I want to use the results and submissions on the Green Paper to prepare a significant Communication on the future development of our quality policy. I would expect that to be presented in 2009, and it would look further into all aspects of our quality policy, thereby paving the way for the necessary proposals.

Quality policy is therefore one example of how the APS 2009 will be characterised by the consolidation and implementation of the initiatives that we started in 2008. Another initiative stretching over several years relates to the expected effects of climate change on the agricultural sector. We address that in the Health Check, and in 2009 we plan to prepare a Communication on the adaptation of agriculture to climate change.

But 2009 will also be marked by an outstanding event, which will make a huge imprint on our good collaboration - the change-over to co-decision for the CAP when the new Treaty enters into force. On our side, we are preparing intensively, both with regard to the practicalities and with regard to how to fit today's CAP into the new legal provisions.

I know that also the Parliament is gearing up in this respect, and I sincerely hope that practical and technical hurdles will be overcome before the new Treaty enters into force. Off course, there will be some learning-by-doing for us all. But I want today to send a clear political message to this Committee, which I have always regarded as backing my vision of the CAP – at least on most issues!

I am very satisfied that the CAP will come under co-decision and that the EP comes on an equal footing with the Council. Full EP involvement will help to better justify the CAP and its expenditure in the eyes of the public. Even though legislation may take longer under co-decision, I am convinced that EP involvement will help to reach better political compromises and will enhance the legitimacy of our actions.

There are some legal novelties in the Treaty, which could affect the way we work under the CAP. Among others, the new Treaty foresees that the Council may fix prices, levies, aids and quantitative limitations without involving EP [the new Art. 37 paragraph 3].

I know the EP is concerned that a wide use of this provision would leave the Parliament without influence on a broad range of issues. We don't yet have a firm legal opinion on this Article, but let me share my political view with you. The Lisbon Treaty establishes co-decision as the normal legislative procedure, while the procedure in Article 37(3) does not even have the status of a special legislative procedure. This clearly suggests that this way of legislating is an exception from the normal rule of co-decision and should therefore be interpreted restrictively.

I would be against any excessive use of Article 37(3). I want to build my relationship with the EP on mutual trust. You will act as co-legislator, and with that power goes co-responsibility. How should limiting your responsibility help us to build that mutual trust?

Above all, I see this Article as a power to punctually fix aid amounts, quotas etc. where this has not been done under co-decision or to adopt amendments. Please note, that under current arrangements it is often the Commission which fixes these parameters as part of its day-to-day CAP management.

Co-decision starts when the Treaty enters into force. We need to adopt the Health Check in 2008. Otherwise, we miss the chance for further modernisation of the CAP on this side of the next Financial Perspectives. It does not serve our common interest to delay the Health Check. I know that there is a lot of understanding for this view from the Members of COMAGRI, and I really count on this to last throughout 2008. For my part, I have put a lot of effort into keeping you constantly informed. I intend to intensify this in the run-up to the final decision on the Health Check and make active use of EP proposals.

Compared to the past ten years, consumer prices for food have recently shown extraordinary increases. Price increases were particularly high for basic foods [milk/cheese/eggs, oils/fats and bread/cereals]. However, in the EU the impact of the rise in food prices on the standard of living is limited by the low and declining share of agricultural raw materials in food production costs and the relatively low share of food expenditure in household consumption: 14% for the average EU household in 2007. Of course averages mask the far greater impact on low income families.

The responsibility for the recently observed massive price increases for food at retail level rests with each sector along the supply chain. Overall, the agricultural sector accounts for only 25% of the final price at retail level. The increases in the farm-gate price can therefore only partly explain the price surge at consumer level, which varies from around 10% for bread and cereals to around 15% for milk, cheese and eggs. As an example, the steep increase in cereal prices should normally translate into a price increase of 3%, simply because the share of cereals in the final price is very small compared to energy, labour and transport. Still, the price of bread has increased by 10% over the last year. There are therefore clearly other forces at work at the different stages of the food supply chain.

It should be noted that the EU bio-fuel policy only has a rather limited effect on prices given the less than 1% of cereals production is used for bio-ethanol production.

Thanks to our successive reforms, we expect farmers to respond to market signals and to increase production as a reaction to higher prices. Short-term policy adjustment has also given incentives to boost production, with mandatory set-aside set at zero for the 2008/09 campaign and a 2 % increase in milk quotas on 1 April 2008. Furthermore, the EU has decided to suspend cereal import duties for the current marketing year for most cereals. It goes without saying, that what we suggest in the Health Check will also in the medium term help to mitigate prices.

But even if food inflation will eventually level off, the increase has had a hard-felt impact on the poorest in our societies. For 20 years, the Food Distribution programme has provided relief to the most deprived persons and has contributed to dispose of intervention stocks. The programme has grown over the years in parallel with the successive enlargements of the EU. In 2006 an estimated 13 million citizens benefited from this scheme that constitutes an important contribution of the CAP to the well being of EU citizens.

I am fully aware that we need to maintain this scheme, and the recent developments have confirmed me in this view. At the same time, due to the successful CAP reforms, intervention stocks are almost empty. It is therefore time to rethink this scheme, and fit it into a broader CAP approach. For long, our market instruments have been of declining importance compared to other instruments designed with a view to broader objectives, such as economic diversification and environmental sustainability. To increase the food security of millions of poor Europeans is an objective which in my view is fully in line with a modern CAP that pursues broader objectives and supports other Community policies. We are now conducting the necessary Impact Assessment in close cooperation with stakeholders. I hope that the Commission can adopt the corresponding legal proposals in September and I am hopeful that you will support me in this.

The last legal proposal which I will mention today is the review of the Less Favoured Areas scheme where I expect to come with a proposal in November.

There is a need to restore the credibility of the LFA scheme following the criticisms of the Court of Auditors, in the interest of those areas where agriculture is operating under difficult conditions. There is also a wider interest: farmers in marginal areas also deliver public goods for the whole society.

A public consultation on possible options for reviewing the LFA system is currently open. I count on you for disseminating the message and inviting all interested parties to send their contribution to the Commission.

Let me also shortly bring up WTO negotiations. The successful conclusion of the DDA remains a top priority for the Commission, as it would give the world economy a much needed boost. We know well that the coming weeks and month will be decisive, so that the Round, as a single undertaking, can be concluded by the end of the year, which is an essential objective, at least for the EU.

On the road towards possible modalities, there are still difficult outstanding issues which are not ripe yet for Ministerial involvement. This is in particular the case of tropical products and preference erosion. These issues need to advance before the Agriculture Chair, Ambassador Falconer, can be in a position to table his last draft modalities text, together with a revised NAMA text. Based on that, the horizontal process could start at Senior Officials' level, before moving to Ministerial level.

On substance, it is absolutely clear that the 2003 CAP reform, including the envisaged phasing out of export refunds by 2013, is Europe's important contribution to the DDA and constitutes the benchmark for its negotiating brief in the WTO roundAny deal that could be reached must be comprehensive and cover issues of clear interest to the EU. The ambition in agriculture must be fully matched by the other areas of the negotiations, including NAMA, Services and Rules, as well as Geographical Indications.

The fact that our agricultural sector is now much more competitive thanks to the CAP reforms gives a sound basis to benefit from any liberalisation of markets.

Chairman, this is it for the moment. I hope I have some time to react to your contributions and remarks.



[1] The APS 2008 was presented in the COMAGRI of 7 May 2007. notas_de_prensa_archivo