22-23 September Agriculture Council

Date: 25/09/1997

PROPOSALS designed to rejuvenate the EU's rural economy met with strong resistance from a large group of influential farm ministers on the first day of the meeting. Moves under the European Commission's Agenda 2000 reform package to shift some money from the structural funds into the agricultural guarantee fund were rejected in particular by Germany's Jochen Borchert and his counterparts from the Netherlands and Belgium. They argued this would reduce the amount of money for direct support to farmers. Other member states, including Spain and Greece, voiced similar concerns. Italy expressed reservations for the opposite reason, claiming that rural spending would suffer because of a greater commitment to market support measures. UK Minister Jack Cunningham and Sweden's Annika Ahnberg backed the plans, but said any additional rural spending had to be financed from savings in agricultural support.

AGRICULTURE Commissioner Franz Fischler stressed that the development of the rural economy was an integral part of the Common Agricultural Policy reform. He pointed out that the regions most dependent on agriculture had the lowest development rates and the lowest per capita gross domestic product in the Union. Fischler said average rural unemployment was now running at 12.5&percent;. The Commissioner claimed that 40,000 farm development plans were approved every year, that 23,000 young farmers benefited from instalment grants and that Objective 5b of the structural funds had helped to create half a million jobs. Commission figures suggest that farmer numbers are declining at 3&percent; per annum and that half of all European farmers are over 55 years old. Fischler stressed that future rural policy must aim at promoting a competitive agricultural sector, while encouraging diversification both on and off farms. Tailoring policies to the needs of individual regions would imply a high degree of subsidiarity, he added.

JACK Cunningham stated that he had pushed his EU partners for the export ban to be eased for all British beef, but had run into stiff resistance from Germany. “I have submitted a scheme which I wanted to apply to the UK as a whole. That remains my position. But there was a very strong negative reaction from Germany,” he said. Cunningham insisted it was up to the Commission to forward a proposal to the Standing Veterinary Committee on easing the ban. But Fischler said he would “prefer to wait to see what the British proposal is”, suggesting the UK would have to amend its plans in the light of last week's scientific advice. The UK updated the Council on progress made on tightening export controls since the discovery of illegal beef exports earlier this year.

FISCHLER confirmed that the Union would appeal against the World Trade Organisation panel findings that the EU ban on imports of hormone-treated beef was illegal. Council chairman Fernand Boden said: “We feel strongly about food safety and have asked the Commission to take all necessary steps to get a favourable decision.” Ministers also discussed how the Union should react to the failure of its appeal against a similar ruling on the banana regime. Fischler was asked to draw up some ideas for action.

AMONG the minor points covered was the adoption of rules allowing yoghurt to be included in school milk promotion schemes in Sweden and Finland; Swedish concerns about salmonella checks; and a Spanish request to give surplus fruit to schools.