PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN
THE INTERNAL MARKET
(21601)
11274/00
COM(00) 538
|
Draft Council Regulation on information provision and promotion of
agricultural products in the internal market.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 37 EC; consultation; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 8 September 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 11 September 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 28 September 2000 |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 12 October 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None, but see (18901) 5386/99: HC 34-xii (1998-99), paragraph 16 (10 March 1999)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| Following receipt of European Parliament opinion
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
20.1 At present, the Commission operates
12 promotional schemes for agricultural products, selected over
the years by the Council. Each scheme follows its own rules, and
falls into one of two categories: those run directly by the Commission
(olive oil, flax, nuts, and logos), and those run indirectly through
the Member States or trade organisations (beef, milk products,
apples and citrus fruit, grape juice, flowers, and labelling).
According to the Commission, there is a need for this whole system
to be simplified and made more uniform, so as to make a more effective
use of the resources available. It has therefore proposed in this
document that the existing schemes should be withdrawn, and replaced
by a single scheme covering all promotion of agricultural products
in the internal market, thus following the approach already adopted
for promotion outside the Community[76].
The current proposal
20.2 The main rationale behind the proposal
is the belief that the Community can play a part in providing
information of a generic character, thereby complementing, rather
than overlapping with, the promotional activities of companies
and national or regional authorities. It would thus concentrate
on topics such as quality, nutritional value, safety, labelling
and traceability, protected designations, and organic production,
with a view to upgrading the image of European products in the
eyes of consumers. Programmes would be part-financed (50% on average)
by the Community, and 20% by the Member State endorsing them,
with the balance being met by the trade organisations proposing
them; and, once precise guidelines had been established by the
Commission for a particular sector, the initiative for the programmes
would pass to trade organisations, with Member States being responsible
for monitoring their execution. For its part, the Commission would
be required every three years to draw up a list of themes and
products to be covered. Under the proposal, Community budgetary
expenditure would be 45 million euro (£28 million) a year.
The Government's view
20.3 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 12
October 2000, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (the Rt. Hon. Joyce Quin) recalls that the
UK opposed the equivalent proposal relating to Third Countries
on the grounds that it was not necessary for the Commission to
spend funds on generic promotion. She says that similar arguments
apply to the present proposal, but that, since the previous measure
was adopted in spite of "sustained opposition" from
the UK and some other Member States, it is not clear at this stage
how much support the UK would find for opposing this latest proposal
on the same grounds. She also suggests that the proposal to harmonise
a number of existing promotional schemes could be argued as resulting
in a more selective and targeted use of Community funds, though
she also warns that, since decisions on the sectors to receive
funding would be taken under the Management Committee procedure,
it would be necessary to try to ensure that these were not biased
towards certain sectors or Member States.
Conclusion
20.4 We share the Minister's reservations
about this proposal, as well as her unease over the potential
consequences of the way in which the Commission envisages decisions
being taken on the sectors to receive support. We are therefore
withholding clearance, pending any further information which the
Minister can provide on this point, and on how the sum of 45 million
euros envisaged by the Commission compares with expenditure under
the Community's existing promotional schemes.
20.5 We also note that she has said that
some Member States' trade promotional bodies, such as Food from
Britain, have been consulted by the Commission, but that she has
not indicated whether those bodies consulted within the UK are
in favour of what is proposed. Again, we would welcome information
on this.
76 (18901) 5386/99; see headnote to this paragraph. Back
|
