----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union

(2005/C 231/12)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union [COM(2004) 687 final — 2004/0247 (CNS)];

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 28 October 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to its President's decision of 20 January 2005 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) — the outermost regions of the European Union (COM(2004) 147 final — CdR 156/2000 fin (1));

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission's package of draft regulations subtitled ‘A long-term policy perspective for sustainable agriculture’ (COM(2003) 23 final — CdR 66/2003 fin (2));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission on a stronger partnership for the outermost regions (COM(2004) 343 final — CdR 61/2004 fin;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission on a stronger partnership for the outermost regions: assessment and prospects (COM(2004) 543 final);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 509/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 1 March 2005 by its Commission for Sustainable Development [rapporteur: Mr Almont, Mayor of Schoelcher (FR-EPP)];

WHEREAS

adopted the following opinion at its 59th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 April 2005 (meeting of 14 April):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Recommendation 1

First citation

Reason

Article 299(2) is the appropriate legal basis for establishing the measures proposed in the title of the present draft regulation, focusing specifically on the outermost regions. For the outermost regions, it should represent the normal legal basis, since its very inclusion in the body of the Treaty establishes that, far from jeopardising the Union's integrity, it meets the cohesion objectives defined in the Treaty.

Recommendation 2

Title II

Specific supply arrangements

Article 2

Reason

Annex I to the Commission proposal contains a list of products covered by the specific supply arrangements. The Commission also proposes that this list may be revised using the comitology procedure. The Committee of the Regions supports the Commission's objective of simplifying the arrangements and giving the Member States greater flexibility; this list should only be drawn up when the programmes are being adopted, on a proposal from the Member State concerned.

Recommendation 3

Article 4(2)

Reason

This limitation could be extremely prejudicial to the outermost regions.

The sustainable development of rural communities in the outermost regions depends partly on the existence of agri-businesses which can add value to local products and provide an important locomotive for development by creating new jobs, fostering innovation and introducing new cultures and practices.

The small physical size and market of the outermost regions is a serious constraint on the development of agri-businesses in an increasingly open and competitive market.

Recommendation 4

Article 5(2)

Reason

In order to further simplify the instrument, as desired by the Commission, and to offer the Member States maximum flexibility, we propose that the list of eligible products be established by each Member State at the programming stage. The Commission would continue to control Member States' choice of products when the programmes are adopted, laying down the products, quantities and levels of aid. The Member States would continue to be consulted in the context of the comitology procedure by which the supply programmes are approved.

Recommendation 5

Article 8a

Reason

The purpose is to incorporate Article 18 of Commission Regulation 20/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation 127/2005, which enables C sugar to be imported into the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores, into the Proposal for a Council Regulation. Given that the draft Council Regulation for the new Posei already embodies many of the questions to be included in the subsequent implementing regulation, this article should be included in the above-mentioned draft Posei Regulation in order to provide legal backing for the import of C sugar into these outermost regions.

Recommendation 6

Title III

Measures to assist local agricultural products

Article 9

Reason

The programming approach implies continuity of measures. In sectors such as vegetables or livestock, which require long-term visibility, it should be possible for programmes to extend over the entire duration of the future 2007-2013 programming period.

Recommendation 7

Article 12(a)

Reason

The evaluation required by the Commission should not go as far back as 1991, since it evaluated the Poseidom, Poseima and Poseican programmes in 2000, prior to the adoption of Regulations 1452/2001, 1453/2001 and 1454/2001.

Secondly, the evaluation under Articles 27(2), 39(2) and 25(2) respectively of these regulations has not been carried out by the Commission. It is not the Member States' task to fulfil this obligation.

Lastly, an assessment of the impact of the measures since 1991 would run counter to the aim of simplification guiding the draft regulation, and would add considerably to the Member States' workload. In consequence, the evaluation of the Posei measures should cover the period of their implementation since the adoption of these regulations, i.e. 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Recommendation 8

Article 12(d)

Reason

The particular situation of the outermost regions, in particular the small size of their markets and their dependence on a small number of economic sectors, entails close interdependence between the sectors covered by the present programme. In order to maximise these sectors' chances of attaining their development objectives, and in keeping with the purpose of simplifying the management of the instrument, the greatest possible degree of budget flexibility should be allowed between different measures within a single programme, throughout the whole of the relevant period. This would ensure that the desired effectiveness is achieved.

Recommendation 9

Article 19(2)

Reason

The mountainous nature of the region (88 % of the land has slopes of more than 16 % gradient) and the structure of farm ownership (average farm size of less than 0.4 ha, spread over a number of very small plots) mean that restructuring vineyards is both physically difficult and expensive. Given the socio-economic importance of wine-growing for the region, it is important that the deadline for restructuring vineyards growing varieties prohibited under Community legislation should be extended.

Recommendation 10

Article 20(4)

Reason

The amendment seeks to ensure that the region's locally produced milk always finds an outlet, and to give its dairy industry more flexibility in managing local production and the reconstituted milk produced.

The setting of a minimum quantity of milk to be incorporated causes constraints for the sector. In the case of Madeira's dairy industry, for instance, local milk production has not been sufficient to cover the percentage currently in force.

Recommendation 11

Article 24

Reason

In basing its definition of the budget envelope for the supply arrangements on the historical references for the 2001-2003 period, the Commission ignores both its progressivity, which was particularly marked in 2004, and the impact of the changes that were introduced with the 2001 reform of the Posei programmes. The use of an average provides a better reflection of the true situation as it lessens the impact of atypical years or circumstances. Using the years 2002/2004 is more logical than the Commission's proposal (2001/2003) as the 2001 Posei reform was in force throughout these years. The 2002/2004 average provides a better reflection of the situation in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.

Following the Luxembourg Compromise of 30 June 2003, which allowed the outermost regions to be excluded from the scope of decoupling of direct aid in the livestock sector, it was felt appropriate to provide for the introduction of a specific programme, to be integrated into the ‘measures to assist local agricultural products’ under the present draft regulation. The budget allocation for this programme was set in accordance with the payments made during the last year of application of the CMO for the livestock sector, as laid down in Article 147 of Regulation 1782/2003.

The same calculation method should also be applied to the specific supply arrangements for the French overseas departments, granting a budget envelope reflecting the last year of application of the arrangements, i.e. 2004, due to the particular developments there. The amounts laid down in the present article must therefore be revised accordingly.

Recommendation 12

Article 26

Reason

In view of the scope of the plant health programmes, and in order to comply with the comitology procedure, the adoption of plant health programmes under Article 18 should be submitted to the Standing Committee on Plant Health, not the Management Committee for Direct Payments.

Brussels, 14 April 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 144 of 16.5.2001, p. 11.

(2)OJ C 256 of 24.10.2003, p. 18.

----