Improving competitiveness while preserving the quality and reputation of European wines and stepping up promotion on EU and third country markets are the key aims of a draft report by Giuseppe Castiglione (EPP-ED, IT), presented to the members of the EP agriculture committee on Tuesday. This report makes no fewer than 165 amendments to the European Commission’s wine reform proposal. Although the rapporteur’s proposals were generally welcomed by MEPs, their first reactions point to many further adjustments on sensitive issues.
“We are the leading producers, exporters and importers of wine in the world and it was therefore necessary to foresee reform that can reactivate the sector in an increasingly competitive world”, Mr Castiglione said, presenting his draft report. The rapporteur went on to say: “Our main aim is to create a harmonious, coherent and comprehensible framework that can ensure the best prospects for all member states in this sector”.
Key elements of the draft report
The key elements of the draft report as presented to the members of the agriculture committee are:
- Planting rights. The rapporteur is opposed to the Commission’s plan to fully liberalise planting rights as of 1 January 2014 for wines protected by designations of origin and geographical indications. For other wines, he considers that the decision to liberalise should be taken in the light of a report, to be made by 2012, on measures for balancing the market. Furthermore, the rapporteur is in favour of putting in place, through the “national reserves”, the free movement of rights throughout the EU so that competitive producers may respond freely to market signals.
- Grubbing up. Mr Castiglione suggests that the package of subsidies planned by the European Commission over five years should in fact be distributed in three years, so as to allow winegrowers wishing to stop production to do so as quickly as possible.
- Bans on must aid, chaptalisation and crisis distillation. For the time being, the rapporteur does not propose any amendments to the Commission proposal.
- By products of wine-making. For reasons of quality and environmental protection, the rapporteur calls for the compulsory collection and distillation of all winemaking by-products to be maintained in the regulation. Only distillers should benefit from subsidies for this service, thus allowing a considerable reduction in Community intervention pay-outs.
- Designations. The rapporteur considers it essential that every chain of production for PDO (protected designation of origin) and PGI (protected geographical indication) wines (from harvest to bottling) should be located in the geographical areas in question, so as to preserve the quality and characteristics of the wine.
- Labelling. Mr Castiglione does not support the proposal to allow the harvest year and wine grape variety to be indicated on labels for table wines, a possibility that must, in his view, be reserved for quality wines in order to avoid confusion among consumers. He does, however, consider it should be compulsory for the kind of bottler (independent wine grower, merchant, cooperative …) to appear on the label of PDO and PGI quality wines.
- Wine-making practices. The rapporteur suggests a positive list of authorised oenological practices and rejects the idea of transferring the power to authorise new practices from the Council to the Commission. He is also opposed to the wine-making practices of the OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine) - which are less restrictive than those of the EU - being applied to European wines intended for exportation.
- National budgets and promotion. The rapporteur 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. Mr Castiglione is against redirecting part of spending previously allocated to the 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 rapporteur is against specific rules involving reductions in restructuring and conversion aid or grubbing premiums being added to the regulation.
- Reform implementation. Mr Castiglione considers that the timetable suggested by the Commission - i.e. 1 August 2008 - as the opening date for the next marketing year - is unachievable, in particular as Member States have to set up their national programmes beforehand. He therefore suggests that this date should be deferred until 1 August 2009.
Members’ reactions
Most MEPs speaking thereafter welcomed the draft report, considering it a good basis for negotiating a compromise within the European Parliament. Katerina Batzeli (PES, EL), shadow rapporteur for the socialist group, said she found a number of “positive elements” in the draft report (notably on rural development, grubbing up as well as planning rights and oenological practice). “I could never give my agreement to the Commission proposals on abolition of all distillation”, she nonetheless stressed, adding that negotiation on this was needed, as well as on the question of support programmes.
Overall, most MEPs approved the rapporteur’s ideas on not transferring funds to rural development, the effort to promote European wines on EU and third country markets and maintaining compulsory distillation. But sensitive issues such as budgetary distribution of national envelopes, wine enrichment, abolition of distillation schemes, grubbing up and the liberalisation of planting rights were debated in greater depth.
Csaba Sandor Tabajdi (PES, HU) considered that basing the allocation of national budgets on historic reference criteria would constitute “discrimination” towards the new member states.
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE, DE) wanted more subsidiarity when it came to grubbing up, considering that the draft report shows it is possible to improve the quality and competitiveness of European wines without going that far. He was echoed by Catherine Neris (PES, FR), who called for the introduction of very strict criteria in this field, while Rosa Miguélez-Ramos (PES, ES) suggested retaining a fixed amount that would be “modulated according to output”. “We need a very clear position against grubbing - it is unthinkable that this should be the only way to restructure”, said Vicenzo Aita (GUE-NGL, IT), who also totally opposed the liberalisation of planting rights.
Several MEPs from northern Europe, including Astrid Lulling (EPP-ED, LU), Christa Klass (EPP-ED, DE) and Elisabeth Jeggle (EPP-ED, DE), called for “north-south rebalancing” on the issues of chaptalisation and must enrichment, stressing that there seems to be a majority taking shape in Council in favour of keeping the possibility of adding saccharine in certain regions. “If you are so keen on it, we must find an agreement on this subject”, acknowledged Esther Herranz-Garcia (EPP-ED, ES), whereas Maria Isabel Salinas Garcia (PES, ES) said a compromise was possible, with transition periods.
“Distillation of drinking alcohol must be maintained, as it is not a question of market surpluses”, said Pilar Ayuso (EPP-ED, ES). Finally, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (PES, PT) questioned the appropriateness of “creating exceptions to conditionality”, given the aim of defending the quality of European wines.
Procedure: consultation
Deadline for submitting amendments to the agriculture committee: 18 October.
Agriculture committee vote: 21 November (Brussels)
Plenary vote: 10-13 December session (Strasbourg).
Feed
