Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) of the European Parliament Brussels, 16 March 2009

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

The meeting was chaired by Mr. PARISH (PPE-DE).

I Vote on a report as leading committee Information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields

2009/0016(CNS) - COM (2009)0045

Rapporteur: Mr PARISH (PPE-DE, UK)

The report on the vote on simplified procedure (Rule 43(1)-without amendment) was adopted by

majority vote.

Protection of animals at the time of killing

2008/0180(CNS) COM (2008)0553

Rapporteur: Mr WOJCIECHOWSKI (UE , PL)

The draft legislative proposal was adopted as amended by 21 votes in favour, 1 against and with 2

abstentions.

The draft legislative resolution was adopted by 19 votes in favour, 2 against and with 1 abstention.

The vote on the draft report on :

"Biotechnology: prospects and challenges for agriculture in Europe"

2006/2059(INI)

Rapporteur: Mr VIRRA KOSKI (ALDE, FI)

was postponed until a later date due to the large number of tabled amendments to be discussed.

II Presentation of a study on the US farm bill

This study which provides an analysis of the 2008 US Farm Bill, with comparisons of the relevant

provisions of the EU Common Agricultural Policy was presented by Mr Jean-Christophe Bureau,

professor of economics at the National Institute of Agronomy Paris-Grignon.

According to the study, US production and exports of important agricultural commodities continue

to increase while EU agricultural production seems to be stagnating and the EU has become a net

importer of agricultural and food products for many years.

Most of the current US farm support instruments are particularly designed to protect farmers from

temporarily adverse prices or yields but the level of support to agriculture in absolute terms remains

higher in the EU than in the US.

However, the evolution of US farm policy and the CAP is different as the EU has consistently

moved towards decoupled, fixed payments and away from countercyclical and coupled support

such as variable levies and export refunds in order to fulfil WTO commitments. Moreover, the new

Farm Bill does not fully respect current constraints under the WTO and the ongoing Doha round.

The focus of US farm policy on domestic food programs through distribution of food stamp benefits

is very different from the CAP. EU social programs providing food to charity organisations remain

very limited, although comparisons are difficult because they do not rely on food stamps and are

under the competence of Member States rather than being centralised.

While funding for fresh fruit and vegetable programmes in schools has increased dramatically under

the 2008 US Farm Bill; recent EU initiatives (such as the adoption of an EU-wide scheme to

provide fruit and vegetable to school children in November 2008) indicate that some similar

concerns exist in both the US and the EU.

Another major difference between US and EU legislation is that the former includes provisions that

go beyond the farm sector such as infrastructure, energy, research, waste disposal, rural credits,

local industries, health care services etc. while under Pillar II of the CAP accepted national

programmes have a major agricultural linkage.

Regarding consumer concerns, it is suggested that in US legislation emphasis is put on

microbiological safety rather than genetic engineering and modification which seems to be a major

issue in the EU. In addition, the US set of regulations is perhaps less concerned by animal welfare

than the European.

As in the EU, where legislation on organic produce has been amended, significant efforts have been

made in the US to support organic farming as well as locally or regionally produced agricultural

food.

One interesting point in the US Farm Bill is that it provides for a topping up of the planned

budgetary expenditure as well as adjustments when prices are too low or in the event of a natural

catastrophe and poor yield. Such policy would be very difficult to implement in the EU because of

strict budgetary guidelines.

Finally, according to the study, although US legislation seems more ambitious when compared to

the CAP, and many of its aspects such as crop insurance, certain environmental policies and

allocation of payments system are very positive, it is very fragmented and complicated and should

not be regarded as a source of inspiration in the EU.

The following members took the floor: Ms DE FOL (PSE, FR), Mr SIEKIERSKI (PPE-DE, PL),

Mr ALLISTER (NI, UK), Ms BATZELI (PSE, EL), Mr CAPOULAS SANTOS (PSE, PT),

Ms NERIS (PSE, FR).

They wished to know if public financial assistance to farmers was provided mainly at federal level

and if there was any indication of export refunds. They stressed the flexibility of US budget

procedures and the importance given to infrastructure expenditure.

Mr Bureau replied that financial assistance was granted mainly at federal level expect for biofuel

aids and that exports were subsidised through the use of credits which was more compatible with

WTO obligations.

III Consideration of reports as leading committee

Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

2009/0011(CNS) - COM (2009)0038

Rapporteur: Ms STAVREVA (EPP­ED, BG)

  • - 
    Consideration of draft report

The report was presented by Ms PETRE (EPP-ED, RO) because Ms STAVREVA was unable to

attend the meeting. The Commission proposal was welcomed as a rapid response to the current

economic crisis. Nevertheless, a number of amendments were tabled by the rapporteur who

considered that the current exceptional economic circumstances require foreseeing payments which

can be executed already in budget year 2009. In addition, Member States should have the option not

only to use the funds made available for operations such as developing broadband internet facilities

but also for loans and credit guarantees which would enable rural stakeholders to launch

investments in difficult times. Finally, she advocated that the Commission should refer to the

differences in existing broadband coverage in the Member States as a guide for different levels of

allocation of these funds.

Mr CAPOULAS SANTOS (PSE, PT) and Mr NICHOLSON (PPE-DE, UK) took the floor and

welcomed the report as well as the Commission's proposal to allocate additional funds with a view

to developing broadband internet in rural areas.

In her intervention, the Commission representative pointed out that the impact of the proposed

modification in financial year 2009 concern mainly commitment appropriations rather than payment

appropriations in view of the uncertainties linked to the timing of identification of eligible

programmes by the Member States and receipt of payment claims.

She explained that the scope of operations was limited to financing basic infrastructure in order to

avoid dispersion of funds.

She highlighted the difficulties in taking into account the real needs of each Member State when

distributing funds due to poor statistical data.

Finally, she added that discussions were still in progress with the Council as regards the proposal

and that the results of these discussions would be announced to the members of the committee as

soon as possible.

Timetable:

Deadline for tabling amendments: 17 March 2009, 12h00

Adoption by the Committee: 31 March 2009

Adoption in Plenary: May 2009

National restructuring programmes for the cotton sector

2009/0008(CNS) - COM (2009)0037

Rapporteur: Ms SALI AS GARCÍA (PSE, ES)

  • - 
    Consideration of draft report

Ms SALINAS GARCÍA thanked the Commission for the proposal which provides for the option to

extend the programmes' running time to eight years and include the owners of all factories which

were active during the reference period. She also stressed the need for clear legislation in the sector

and for this reform to be implemented as soon as possible.

The Commission representative took then the floor and explained that the new proposal was

confined to some technical modifications to the existing Council Regulation but it was optional for

those member states that were facing difficulties in applying an 8 year restructuring programme.

Deadline for tabling amendments: 17 March 2009, 12h00

IV Date and place of next meeting Tuesday 31 March 2009 (Brussels)

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie