The discussion was based on four questions:
1) Agreement (Y/N) to reduce the income loss threshold
triggering the use of all tools to 20% (instead of 30%) as proposed in EP amendments
33, 37 and 38
2) On greening
), agreement (Y/N) to make any changes to the regime
through the Omnibus proposal and, if so, which?
3) On VCS
), agreement (Y/N) to add an amendment prepared by the
PRES to the Council mandate and for submission to the next trilogue?
4) On CMO regulation:
a. To which extent would the proposed changes to the framework for producer
lead to simplification and harmonisation of the rules applicable to
producer organisations and negotiations?
b. On regulation of contractual relationships
as well unfair
: based on existing practices concerning contracts and value-
sharing, how important would you assess the impact of the extension of those
provisions to be for other agricultural sectors?
c. On improving and simplification the derogation from the competition rules
general and at times of crisis: for crisis management purposes, the EP proposes to
provide for the possibility of supply management measures
and a voluntary
: considering current practices and the fact that a sector-
specific income stabilisation tool has been proposed under the Rural Development
regulation, in your opinion could the above-mentioned amendments effectively
complement that tool?
d. Can you agree to the concept of strengthening producer organisations in the
- Producer organisations that pursue and integrate an economic activity could be
recognised without the need to meet any significance criteria
(e.g., as foreseen in
the current Articles 169 to 171 of the CMO Regulation).
- Thus, irrespective of the significance of their economic activity, recognised
producer organisations in any sector would be able to plan production, decide upon
the marketing, and market their members' production notwithstanding the
within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.
Summary of discussion
Reduction of threshold (Q1): different reactions from delegations to reduce the income
loss threshold to 20%, but in general the position is that this is not supported by the
delegations; the Cion also clarified that any changes would need to be financed by
Greening (Q2): limited support regarding EP amendments proposed. MS stressed the
need for stability and for maintaining the environmental ambition of greening.
Nevertheless, certain amendments may be acceptable, if they are leading to simplification
and, more generally, MS showed flexibility to come to a compromise with the EP.
VCS (Q3): very broad support for inclusion of PRES amendment on Art 52(5) and 55(6)
On CMO (Q4):
o discussion confirmed that the delegations do not support the concept of
o support for strengthening the farmer's position through contractual relationships,
value-sharing and derogations from competition rules, but mixed positions
whether this should be done in the Omnibus or in the context of the discussions
on the future CAP/FSC initiative
o additional questions raised regarding strengthening of the PO while at the same
time simplifying the existing rules (especially concerns regarding negotiating
o clarification by Commission that no recognition criteria (cfr Question 4d) would
be dropped following misunderstanding by some delegations
The exchange of views on the questions enabled the Presidency to propose a revised
negotiating mandate for agreement at the following SCA meeting on 18 September 2017.
- A new four column table will be prepared by 8 September.
- Attachés meeting on 12 Sept
- New mandate to be voted during SCA meeting of 18 Sept
- Trilogue of 7 Sept will be based in CS position of April 2017 (pointing out where the
Council is willing to make compromises)
Organisation of future work
The next SCA meeting will take place on 18 September 2017. The main agenda item will
be the Omnibus file and will include a de-briefing of the Trilogue meeting of 7
September and a renewal of the negotiating mandate.
In preparation of this, an attachés meeting will take place on 12 September in Brussels.