16. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance,
but make no recommendation for its further consideration:--
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(17787)--
-- |
Report from the Commission on the implementation of the oilseeds
agreement. |
| Legal base: |
-- |
Background
16.1 The Blair House oilseeds agreement[28]
imposes sanctions against the expansion of EC oilseeds production. Penalties are imposed if the
base area for oilseeds is exceeded, with payments to producers being reduced by 1% for each 1% by
which the base area is exceeded. The Commission introduced a system under which the total area
under cultivation in the Community is taken into account in calculating the base area. However,
penalties when the Community base area is exceeded applies only to those States which have overshot
their national maximum areas.
16.2 Production patterns have changed since the base period used to establish the
base area in the Blair House oilseeds agreement and, while United Kingdom production has changed
relatively little, the allocation of the base figure would result in a figure for the UK below
production; a simple system of national quotas would therefore result in immediate penalties. The
disadvantage of the EC-wide system is that, once the threshold has been exceeded, the penalties fall
disproportionately on those countries whose allocated base area has been exceeded. The Commission
was required to report to the Council by 31 December[29] on the
operation of the system and, if necessary, to make an appropriate proposal.
The Commission report
16.3 We do not have a copy of the Commission's report but we have seen a working
document covering the issues in the report.
The UK Government view
16.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 13 January the Minister of State at the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Baldry) tells us that the report says that the
present system should be continued. He points out that the continuation of the arrangement under
which any overshoot of the threshold results in penalties to Member States exceeding their national
reference areas is less favourable to the UK than the original proposal in 1995 which would have
allowed an even distribution of penalties up to a 5% excess of the threshold.
16.5 However, against this, the Minister says that penalties for overshooting are
not as great as they would be if Member States who exceeded their maximum areas were not able to
benefit from undershoots in other Member States. In most years the situation is beneficial to the
UK. In the one year, 1994, in which penalties had to be applied, payments in respect of UK oilseeds
were reduced by 11.6% although the UK overshoot was 25% above its national area. He states
"current indications are that plantings would stabilise around the Community maximum guaranteed
area thus avoiding the imposition of penalties".
Conclusion
16.6 Any system which fixes national areas for a specific crop at a single point
in time is bound to create difficulties as cropping patterns change. The advantage of the present
system is that it fulfils the Community's international obligations but does allow those Member
States where production has increased to take advantage of shortfalls in other Member States before
penalties are applied. It is unlikely that any alternative arrangement would work any better. We
consider the report to be politically important, but make no recommendation for a debate.
28.Council Decision 93/355/EEC: OJ No. L 147, 18.6.93, p.25. Back
29.By Council Regulation 1765/92: see (13205)1765/92; see HC 24-ii (1991-92),
paragraph 5 (13 November 1991); and (14781) 8602/93; see HC-xxxvii (1992-93), paragraph 41 (20
October 1993). Back
|
