The European Commission’s proposal for reforming the wine sector, presented to the EP Agriculture Committee on Wednesday by Commissioner Fischer Boel, will halve the amount of grubbing-up, a key element for Parliament. While welcoming this fact, MEPs voiced concerns about plans to end the distillation and enrichment schemes, about vine-planting rights and about the allocation among Member States of EU funding.
“I hear in the media that we have made progress, but not everyone understands what is meant by a ‘good compromise’ the same way”, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens/EFA, DE), who chaired the meeting, warned straight away.
“The key aims of the reform”, said Mariann Fischer-Boel, “are to improve the competitiveness of European wine producers and strengthen the reputation of our quality wines as the best wines in the world; to reconquer our traditional markets and gain new ones; to create a system operating with clear and effective rules to match supply and demand; and to safeguard the best traditions of production and the fabric of rural society, whilst protecting the environment”.
Two-step reform, less grubbing-up and more intensive promotion
The Commissioner said that she had finally opted for “a two-step approach as recommended by the European Parliament” in an own-initiative report by Katerina Batzeli (PES, EL), adopted in February 2007, with priority going to structural reform initially, followed by a wider liberalisation of the sector from 2014. Furthermore, 200,000 hectares - rather than the 400,000 envisaged in the Commission’s 2006 communication - would be grubbed up voluntarily, with substantial aids. However, Mrs Fischer Boel underlined that this was only an “objective”.
“To take account of fears expressed by governments and the European Parliament about the economic, social and environmental consequences” of this grubbing-up, Mrs Fischer Boel said that 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, by proposing that an extra €120 million be provided to promote European wine outside the EU. Furthermore, all areas under vines will be eligible for entitlements for the Single Farm Payment - not only grubbed up areas.
Among other key points of the proposed reform are the immediate scrapping of aid for distillation and private storage; the abolition of export refunds; a ban on chaptalisation (sugaring) and the parallel abolition of aid for grape must (which was introduced to offset the competitive advantage of chaptalisation); the creation of national “budgetary envelopes” to fund restructuring measures, crisis management and promotion programmes; the total liberalisation of planting rights from 2014; simpler labelling rules based on geographical origin and the authorisation of wine-making practices allowed by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) for wines intended for export. Bans pf imports of musts for vinification and on blending EU wines with imported wines will be maintained, as MEPs wanted.
Labelling, enrichment and distilling
“We are grateful that the European Parliament’s opinion, as set out in the Batzeli report”, has been heeded, said EP rapporteur Giuseppe Castiglione (EPP-ED, IT). “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 added that the proposed solution for grubbing up had “eased the concerns” of MEPs somewhat, but that several aspects of the proposal would have to be thoroughly discussed over the coming months, such as labelling rules, which “must not sow confusion in consumers’ minds”, the abolition of chaptalisation and aid to grape must, which are closely linked but on which “views differ”, the scrapping of distillation schemes, which raises environmental concerns, wine-making practices and the allocation among Member States of EU funding.
Planting rights, rural development, wine-making
In the ensuing discussion, most MEPs were broadly favourable to the proposed reform although some fears were expressed. Shadow rapporteur Katerina Batzeli said her group (the PES) did not support the full liberalisation of vine planting rights by 2014, as proposed by the Commission, and wanted further discussion of the plans to scrap distillation schemes immediately, ban chaptalisation, halt aid for grape must and transfer resources from the first pillar of the CAP (market measures) to the second (rural development). Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PES, ES) believed the preservation of the current budget for the sector was “good news” but she wondered about the consequences of introducing single payment schemes as well as the criteria for allocating EU funding to Member States.
Niel Busk (ALDE, DK) said he “viewed the reform positively” but voiced fears as to the impact on spirit-producers of the disappearance of distillation aid. Balance between Northern and Southern Europe will be pivotal to the reform, said Lutz Goepel (EPP-ED, DE). Ioannis Gklavakis (EPP-ED, EL) believed that the transfer of funding from the first to the second pillar was not a good idea.
Ilda Figueireido (GUE/NGL, PT) feared the consequences of the reform for small producers and maintained that the new wine-making practices “do not fit with our traditions”, which are “essential” to preserve quality products such as port wine.
Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS, FR) asked the Commissioner “When a vineyard is grubbed up, they plant villas and housing estates. Why do that when the world needs wine?”
Wine reform: Parliament’s timetable
17/07/2007: further debate at the Agriculture Committee
12/09/2007: hearing of experts at the Agriculture Committee
January 2008: vote on EP draft report at the Agriculture Committee
February 2008: vote on EP report in plenary
Feed
