In its draft report on the reform of the wine sector, adopted on Wednesday, the EP Agriculture Committee voted against the automatic liberalisation of planting rights in 2014 and the transfer of funding to rural development. The committee voted in favour of a grubbing up campaign limited to three years, the retention of sugaring as well as aid for grape must, increased sales promotion, more wide-ranging national budgetary envelopes and stricter rules for designations and labelling.
Rapporteur Giuseppe Castiglione (EPP-ED, IT) commented “This was an extremely challenging task for us but a highly important one. The result takes account of the different aspects of European wine production”. Nearly 900 amendments were tabled to the Commission’s proposal but MEPs reached compromises on most of the issues regarded as sensitive by producers. Mr Castiglione’s report, as amended, was approved by a clear majority: 31 votes in favour, 7 against and 3 abstentions.
Main points of the draft report adopted by the Agriculture Committee
- Planting rights. The committee opposes 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, it believes the decision to liberalise should be taken in the light of a report, to be produced by 2012, on measures for balancing the market. However, the committee wants to introduce, through the “national reserves”, the free movement of rights throughout the EU so that competitive producers can respond freely to market signals.
- Grubbing up. By a very large majority, MEPs backed the rapporteur’s view 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 (€510 million for 2009/2010, €337 million for 2010/2011, €223 million for 2011/2012 instead of €430 million for 2008/2009, €287 million for 2009/2010,€184 million for 2010/2011, €110 million for 2011/2012 and €59 million for 2012/2013). The committee also stressed that the scales proposed by the Commission for the grubbing-up premiums should set the minimum and maximum levels of premium that Member States can grant, on the basis of yield.
- Sugaring and grape must. By 30 votes to 5, with 1 abstention, the Agriculture Committee voted against the Commission’s plans to ban sugaring (the adding of sugar to wine to increase alcohol content, as practised in northern Europe) and to abolish aid for grape must (granted to southern European producers to offset the competitive disadvantage of using must). At the same time, MEPs want to keep aid for concentrated or rectified grape must used to increase the alcoholic strengths of wine products as well as the possibility of adding sucrose in wine-growing areas where this is traditionally permitted “when, in consequence of adverse climate conditions, this practice is necessary for achieving the minimum alcoholic strength by volume”. By way of compromise they propose that the limits on increases in the alcoholic strength by volume may be reduced gradually following the impact study to be conducted by the Commission in 2012.
- Potable alcohol (spirits). MEPs also want to preserve aid for distilling “potable alcohol”, which could be granted via national budgetary envelopes under the guise of quality improvement.
- Crisis prevention. To replace the current distillation crisis aid, which the Commission wishes to abolish, MEPs propose that, to compensate for measures designed to prevent overproduction, aid may be established in the form of a payment proportionate to the reduction in the quantities of grapes or wine produced.
- 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.
Feed
