Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 822/97 on the common organization of the market in wine` () (97/C 355/11)

On 25 June 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 September 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Gottero.

At its 348th plenary session (meeting of 2 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 70 votes to seven with eight abstentions.

1. The Commission proposes to amend Article 15 and Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 822/87. These provisions concern the use of malic acid for acidification.

1.1. Annex VI contains a list of authorized oenological practices and processes. For acidification, it currently authorizes the use of tartaric acid or, under the conditions laid down in Article 15, malic acid.

1.2. Article 15(6) provides for the adoption of conditions under which Member States may permit the use, until a date to be fixed, of malic acid for acidification purposes, in respect of wines produced on their territory.

1.3. In the years since the Regulation entered into force, no Member State has ever asked to authorize the use of malic acid, as all producers and all modern wine-making techniques only use tartaric acid for acidification purposes.

1.4. Malic acid is not used because it is too costly and because - unlike tartaric acid - it alters the taste of the wine.

1.5. The Commission's proposal to amend Annex VI by deleting the reference to malic acid is thus in keeping with practice within the industry.

1.6. The Committee therefore approves the deletion of the second indent of Article 15(6) and the replacement of point (k) of Annex VI.3 by '(k) use of tartaric acid for acidification on the terms set in Articles 21 and 23`.

2. The Commission proposes to authorize permanently the use of a deacidification practice at present allowed on a temporary basis by Article 17(3) of the Regulation.

2.1. Article 17(3) authorizes the use for acidification purposes of calcium tartrate, tartaric acid or a homogeneous preparation of tartaric acid and calcium carbonate, until 31 August 1997 (this date has been extended by various regulations, most recently by Regulation 1592/96).

2.2. Producers have used these substances throughout the intervening years, and there have been no contra-indications or expressions of concern from the authorities in the various countries.

2.3. The reasons for only allowing temporary use are thus no longer valid, and the Commission's proposal for permanent authorization also provides more certainty and uniformity in oenological practices.

2.4. The Committee therefore approves the deletion of the words 'until 31 August 1997` in Article 17(3).

3. The Commission proposes to amend Article 45 of the Regulation in order to end the preferential treatment which was temporarily accorded to some installations when aid for the use of must for enrichment was introduced, as this preferential treatment is no longer justified.

3.1. Article 45 provides special aid for concentrated or rectified grape musts produced in wine-growing zones CIII.

3.2. However, this aid has also been granted for concentrated or rectified musts produced outside CIII zones in installations that began producing them before 30 June 1982.

3.3. The derogation was authorized so as not to penalize producers who had invested in extremely costly installations, on the grounds that it would take them many years to write off these investments.

3.4. As these installations have now been in operation for at least 15 years, the Commission is justified in proposing to cease aid for the production of concentrated musts outside CIII zones.

3.5. However, the Committee considers it vital that this differentiated aid should not be withdrawn until 1 September 1998.

3.6. Producers of concentrated musts already have in storage - or will shortly receive - musts from the 1996 harvest, and the price which they have agreed to pay for these was based partly on the special aid granted for musts in CIII zones.

3.7. The withdrawal of this aid on 1 September 1997 would penalize both producers and users of concentrated musts and rectified concentrated musts, as well as seriously disrupting the relevant market. This is totally unjustified. If aid were to continue until 1 September 1998, operators could plan for the forthcoming 1997 harvest accordingly.

3.8. The Committee therefore approves the proposal on condition that it enters into force on 1 September 1998, inter alia so as not to favour certain producers of concentrated and rectified concentrated musts at the expense of others.

4. The Commission proposes to amend Article 53 of the Regulation, which governs entry-price control mechanisms for grape juices and musts.

4.1. Under the proposal, the temporary measures which applied until 30 June 1997 would become permanent.

4.2. The provisions of Article 53 are similar to those for the fruit and vegetable sector but are unsuited to grape juice and must imports.

4.3. For musts for which the application of customs tariff duties depends on the import price of the product, it is difficult to ascertain the exact import price. The documentation presented could be inaccurate or could be designed to secure a more favourable customs tariff.

4.4. Furthermore, the diverse nature of musts means that in some cases there is no official reference price.

4.5. Transitional measures were therefore adopted which applied until 30 June 1997. The Commission now considers it necessary to amend the Regulation in order to ensure that respect for entry prices continues to be checked. Checks would be made either on each consignment (as under the temporary rules), or by using a flat-rate import value.

4.6. While the Committee appreciates the Commission's wish to bring stability to this area, particularly if the declared price is higher than the flat-rate import value and the entry price of the consignment is not declared, it is concerned at the Commission being able to set the flat-rate prices for juices and musts under the procedure laid down in Article 83.

4.7. As it is difficult to determine these prices in the third countries of origin, the Committee thinks that it would be more practical to determine them on the basis of the average price at certain Community markets, as these markets are bound to be able to provide real data on market trends in these products.

4.8. These markets could be chosen using the procedures laid down in Article 83.

Brussels, 2 October 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 214, 16. 7. 1997, p. 11.

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments were defeated during the debate:

1. Point 1.3

Add the words in 'bold`:

'In the years since the Regulation entered into force, no Member State has ever asked to authorize the use of malic acid, as all EU producers and all modern EU wine-making techniques only use tartaric acid for acidification purposes.`

Result of the vote

For: 29, against: 46, abstentions: 7.

2. Point 1.4

Add the words in 'bold`:

'Malic acid is not used in the EU because it is too costly and because - unlike tartaric acid - it alters the taste of the wine when used under European climatic conditions. It is however needed by some of our trading partners. Imports and sale of wine containing it are governed by bilateral treaties (1)

(1) OJ L 86, 31. 3. 1994, p. 3 (see p. 12, Annex I.1(a) 14 on malic acid); OJ L 176, 3. 7. 1984, p. 7 (see p. 8, Annex 1(b) on malic acid).`.

Result of the vote

For: 21, against: 48, abstentions: 9.

3. Points 1.5 and 1.6

Modify point 1.5 as follows:

'The Commission's proposal to amend Annex VI by deleting the reference to malic acid is therefore accepted providing ways can be found to continue compliance with the relevant bilateral agreements.`

Delete point 1.6.

Result of the vote

For: 25, against: 54, abstentions: 10.

Reason

The opinion is incorrect in saying that malic acid is not used. This only applies to the EU. It is necessary and widely used elsewhere, especially in Commonwealth countries. There is therefore a danger that its prohibition in EU wine will prejudice sale of Commonwealth wine here.