The PRES introduced the presentation of the Communication and invited the Delegations
to comment on the two questions proposed for the Agrifish Council of 11/12
("In your
view, what are the central strategic issues for the future of CAP that stem from the
Communication? Does the Communication cover all key issues and challenges for the
post-2020 CAP and, if not, what are the gaps?").
The COM (Mrs Benitez Salas) presented the key elements of the Communication and
illustrated, in particular, the new delivery model based on a structured dialogue process
with the MS.
Several MS took the floor to express their agreement with the proposed questions and
raise some points:
Simplification and flexibility are welcome; nevertheless, it is important to
maintain a common policy. Doubts were expressed about the capacity of the
COM to check 28 different CAP strategic plans (LU, PT).
Considering the tight timing for the negotiations of the future policy proposals,
transitional provisions might be necessary (LU).
The external convergence process, which was not finalised with the previous
reform, should continue (PT).
The increased attention reserved to the environmental and climate issues is
considered a positive element of the communication (PRES, PT, DK).
As the communication provides only general orientations (PT, HU, PL), PL
suggested to add a third question on the issues that would need to be further
clarified by the COM. Moreover, PL proposed that the Council provides
conclusions to feed the discussions on the future MFF.
Despite the fact that the new policy will not apply to the UK, the Delegation
expressed willingness to find shared solutions to common problems.
The PRES gave the floor to the BG Delegation which will be in charge of the Presidency
as from January. BG considers that the debate on the future CAP is strategic; therefore it
will be encouraged during their mandate.
The PRES thanked the COM and concluded that the SCA took note of the suggestions
for the discussions of the Agrifish Council of 11/12.
Reporting:
, DG AGRI, Unit C.1 Tel.:
4.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the definition, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the
names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs
and the protection of geographical indications for spirit drinks
– State of play and guidance for future work
The Presidency presented the latest progress report taking stock of Council discussions
during the last semester. They highlighted the need for delegations to take position on
two key issues: possibility of expanding scope to alcohol from beer and the dynamic
system of ageing in ‘criaderas and soleras’.
2
The Commission (R. Moegele) thanked the efforts of the Presidency and expressed its
opposition to expanding the scope to non-Annex I products on grounds of reputation of
EU spirits. On ‘criaderas’, the Commission considered this should be one of the several
issues to be considered by the Council as part of the final general approach. Also, the
Commission insisted again on the limitation of empowerments which could undermine
the future flexibility on the sector and work against MS interest. Finally, the Commission
expressed its concerns about the deletion of the provisions on mixtures and compound
terms. To wrap-up, the Commission highlighted the need for an enhanced political
steering in order to ensure this file is dealt during the current EP mandate.
Concerning the possibility to use alcohol from beer, MS were split. While ES, PL, HU,
FR, EL, SK, RO, LV, BE, AT, IT, CY were against, DE, SI, IE, FI, NL, UK, SE, CZ, PT,
HR, MT were in favour. FR, supported by SI, RO, CZ, AT, CY and HR requested a
market impact assessment on the inclusion of alcohol from beer.
Concerning the ‘criaderas y soleras’ method, ES, FI and PT supported the full use of the
possibility without geographical restrictions. PL, HU, FR, EL, SK, DE, RO, NL, UK,
LV, DK, CZ, AT, CY, LT were in favour of a solution limited to GI areas of ES and PT.
SV, IE, IT, HR and BE were not in favour of any derogation on this issue.
A number of delegations raised other issues, such as bottling or an unsatisfactory GI
system (EL, IE, SV), maximum level of sugar in edulcurated vodka (FI, LV, IT), sugar
free labelling and "Obstbrand" (AT). Notably DE indicated the need for further technical
work and reservations on several areas (GI’s, ethyl carbamate, mixtures).
The Council LS intervened at the request of the Presidency to stress that on ‘criaderas y
soleras’, derogation to ES and PT must be fine-tuned in order to be fully in line with the
WTO rules, to precise that the text on GI’s has been aligned with other GI texts, and on
bottling referred to ECJ jurisprudence allowing bottling in the region.
The Commission wrapped up by stressing that inclusion of beer would be outside the
scope of the regulation and that it would not be prepared to undertake any impact
assessment from its part.
The Presidency concluded by stating the work in progress to arrive to a final Council
position, and noting preference for delegations to stick to status quo on scope and
agreement with a limited derogation on dynamic system.
The Presidency confirmed the negotiations are to be continued in order to arrive to a final
Council position. On Q1, the Presidency noted that most MS preferred the status quo
(only allowing "Annex I"- Products). The Presidency also noted that the Commission
specified there may be a need for an impact assessment but that it will not carry it out
itself. On Q2 (derogation for labelling) the SCA noted that in principle MS were in
favour of such a derogation. However as to the options, none of them was clearly
preferred by a majority of the delegations (although option 2 receiving most of the
support). Presidency wandered if this option was to be used as a basis for further work,
3
bearing in mind the specifications from the Council LS). The incoming Presidency (BG)
also intervened to announce it hoped to start with Trilogues as from Feb 2018.
The SCA took note of the information and state of play on this dossier, including the
Presidency amendments. The SCA gave guidance to the incoming Presidency for further
work and took note of the additional comments made by the delegations as well as of the
comments from the Commission and Legal Service of the Council.
Reporting:
, DG AGRI, Unit G.2 Tel.:
5.
Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013
determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the
common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, as regards the
quantitative limitation for buying-in skimmed milk powder - Approval of the draft Regulation
The Commission proposal to amend Council Regulation 1370/2013 (the fixing
Regulation) to set at 0 the 109 000 t ceiling for buying-in SMP at fixed price under
public intervention in 2018 was put by the EE Presidency on the agenda of the SCA as an
II point (for discussion) so as to allow MS to react to the proposal.
The Presidency recalled the broad support observed at the SCA of 23 October and the
need to have the Regulation in force on time for the next intervention period starting on 1
March 2018.
LT, supported by PL and LV expressed concerns on the overall balance of the skimmed
milk powder market and asked for solutions to deal with existing SMP stocks. LV could
support the proposal if it included a provision that would allow the Commission to
restore fixed price buying-in, if necessary. Those 3 MS intend to oppose the proposal.
HU will abstain. DK mentioned a parliamentary scrutiny reservation but was hopeful of
being in a situation to support the Commission proposal.
FR, while expressing support for the Commission proposal, asked for an AOB point on
milk at the next AGRIFISH Council to debate the way forward with SMP stocks. The
Presidency took note, but raised attention to the fact the Commissioner Hogan would not
be present at the December Council.
The Commission representative drew attention to the danger of allowing for the problem
to become even bigger while discussing about a possible solution. He also underlined
that the proposal was not making the safety net disappear but allowing for its use to be
better targeted on market developments.
Other MS supporting the Commission proposal, the Presidency concluded that the SCA
had taken note of LT, PL and LV's comments and opposition to the proposal, of HU's
abstention, of DK's parliamentary scrutiny reserve and of the Commission's comments.
Given that there is no blocking minority, the Presidency instructed the Council secretariat
to launch the legal-linguistic finalisation to pave the adoption of the Regulation at the
beginning of 2018.
4
Reporting:
, DG AGRI, Unit G.3 Tel.:
6.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/... of 16.11.2017 fixing a flat-rate
reduction for the import duty for sorghum in Spain imported from third
countries
– Follow-up on the written consultation
PL and HU took the floor, and opposed against the proposal, considering it would bring
pressure on the EU cereals market prices and therefore would imply negative impacts on
producers income.
ES also intervened and recalled the WTO international commitment which provides for the
obligation for the Union to facilitate the import of 300.000 tonnes of sorghum in Spain, in
particular in case of the import duty is positive.
Other Member States did not react.
The Presidency took note of the PL and HU objections and comments made by ES and the
Commission. The Presidency concluded there was no qualified majority against the
Commission proposal for a Delegated Regulation.
Reporting:
, DG AGRI, Unit G.4 Tel.:
7.
Organisation of future work
OMNIBUS next steps
6 December – as Coreper "I" item,
AGRIFISH Council "A" point once adopted in EP (foreseen on 12 December in the
evening – agenda to be distributed on 8 December)
12 December (lunchtime) – EP note
Commission to inform Council of its position by 12 December at the latest
13 December – signing by Presidency and EP (18h00)
Reporting:
, DG AGRI, Unit I.5 Tel.:
5