C 226/14 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Commission Staff Working Paper on non-food
crops in the context of Agenda 2000’
(2000/C 226/06)
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,
having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper on non-food crops in the context of Agenda 2000
(SEC(1998) 2169);
having regard to the decision taken by its bureau on 2 June 1999, under the fifth paragraph of Article
265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to instruct Commission 2 for Agriculture, Rural
Development and Fisheries to prepare an opinion on the subject;
having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 286/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 2 on 26 November 1999
(rapporteurs: Mr Censi (Regional Councillor for the Midi-Pyrénées, Mayor of Rodez, F, EPP) and Ms Aubert
(Regional Councillor for Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, F, PSE)),
adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session on 12 and 13 April 2000 (session of 12 April).
1.Background 1.3. Although the Commission reviews the various non-
food crops in detail, the approach adopted is ultimately very
general. However, it is extremely difficult for example tocompare rapeseed with short-rotation poplar cultivation and1.1. The working paper prepared by the Commissionmedicinal or dye plants.(Agriculture DG) at the request of the Agriculture Council of
22-26 June 1998 is well documented and interesting, since it
describes the present state of the non-food and energy crops
sectors. Although we believe that a non-food policy is necessary, we
feel that this matter should be approached with care and
discrimination in view of the very different crops involved.
The paper first carries out an inventory of EU land used for
producing crops for non-food purposes.
It then describes agricultural policy supporting non-food 2.General comments
products in terms of market organisation and aid schemes.
2.1. Agenda 2000 is now a reality, having been ratified by1.2. This paper is excellent as an inventory; but it containsthe Berlin Council of 24 and 25 March 1999, and in fact nohardly any appropriate proposals — which the Council alsospecific non-food policy has been adopted.requested.
2.2. The absence of a specific policy places ‘non-food’ inThe first sentence in this working document is very explicit:competition with food, with the recurring objective of Agenda‘The CAP reform proposed by Agenda 2000 does not foresee2000 being that the prices of European goods should be thea “non-food policy” as such’.same as those on the world market.
To make sure the message gets through, it has been repeated
This line of reasoning is not very encouraging for ‘non-food’ twice in the body of the text: in point 4 (‘Agenda 2000 and
because prices in the oil or chemicals industries are often very non-food crops’) ‘Within Agenda 2000, there is no specific
low, and lower than those in the agro-food industry. proposal for a non-food policy as such’ and in point 6
(‘Conclusions for a debate’) ‘Within Agenda 2000, there is no
specific proposal for a non-food policy as such’.
This is because on the markets in fuels, petrochemicals or fine
chemistry, agricultural raw materials compete with products ofmineral origin, synthetic products or agricultural commodities It would have been very surprising if this working document
from the Commission (Agriculture DG) were to go against the produced cheaply in countries where production costs are very
low or give rise to automatic compensation based on a Agenda 2000 prepared by the same Commission directorate-
general. guaranteed fixed price.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/15 Official Journal of the European Communities
2.3. This lack of a specific policy, which is referred to three One can only regret this strategy that has emerged after a great
deal of Commission encouragement for non-food: times in the text, is, however, cushioned by the statement:
‘Nevertheless, several proposals entail provisions relating to
non-food’.— Agricultural research programmes AIR (1990-94) and
FAIR (1994-98) with co-financing of research-develop-ment-pilot projects concerning non-food;
There are market organisations and specific aid schemes for:
— Mandate given to the CEN in 1997 on biodiesel specifi-
cations;— textile linen and hemp;
— Draft directive of 1992 on special tax arrangements for
— cotton; biofuels;
— Industrial set-aside with the 1992 CAP reform; — starch production;
— the Commission proposal of 17 November 1997 for a— sugar for the chemical industry.directive restructuring the Community framework for the
taxation of energy products;
2.4. The situation is much more critical for non-food crops— Commission White Paper on renewable energy sources (
1);produced on set-aside land, in keeping with Regulation (EC)
No. 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers
— campaign of 14 April 1999 for take-off of renewable of certain arable crops.
energy sources (2) which set an objective of 5 million
tonnes of biofuels for 2003 compared with the current
level of just under one million;Agricultural producers have seized this opportunity offered to
them, but a non-food policy cannot be developed from a
— and this list of Community incentives is still not exhaustive. principle of non-production (set-aside).
The feeling of regret is all the greater when the various researchThe Commission itself recognises that ‘the sustainable develop-that has been carried out has proved that, thanks to agriculturalment of non-food cannot be based on a set-aside rate whichor industrial technical progress, primary commodities havevaries from year to year according to the market situationbeen made more competitive.for food commodities’. The set-aside rate proposed by the
Commission was 0 % whereas the rate fixed at the Berlin
summit (24-25 March 1999) was 10 % for the period 2000-Experiments concerning better crop routing, genetic improve-2006.ments in seeds and optimisation of processing and end
products have provided productivity gains both in terms of
cost and respect for the environment.
2.5. As part of the process of exempting biofuels from
excise duties, things have to be resited in their context.
For example, research has made possible a gain of 0.27 FF/l
ester through reduced use of inputs or 0.10 FF/l of ester
through use of new hybrid varieties.
Land set-aside was brought in to balance the cereals market.
This led to the development of research into non-food uses of
agricultural commodities. Considering that the price difference between biofuels and
fossil fuels is nearly 2 FF/l and that the positive externalitiesassociated with biofuel production (with respect to employ-
ment, the greenhouse effect and balance of trade) have beenAmong the most promising sectors identified was that ofestimated at over 1 FF/l, it is to be hoped that biofuels willrenewable energies, particularly motor biofuels.catch up within the next 10 years.
Financial investments were then made in research and pro-
(1) Commission Communication ‘Energy for the future: renewable cessing units for demonstration purposes.
energy sources. White Paper setting out a Community strategy
and plan of action’, COM(97) 599 final, adopted on 26.11.1997.
(2) Working document (SEC(1999) 504) ‘Energy for the future:
It seems essential to pursue the non-food path when the EU renewable sources of energy (Community Strategy and ActionPlan) — Campaign for Take-Off’.
even undertook at Kyoto to cut CO 2emissions.
C 226/16 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
The number of research projects funded by the Commission 3.3. The 1992 directive on the taxation of biofuels, which
has never been finalised, should be relaunched and there and the results achieved show that support by the public
authorities in this area is both profitable and necessary. should be EU-level tax harmonisation.
With this in view, the possibility should be provided for each So, this lack of specific ‘non-food’ proposals is obvious
Member State to fix partial or total tax exemptions on biofuels evidence of political incoherence.
without volume or time restrictions, as proposed in the
directive of 17 March 1997. There needs to be more develop-
ment of the non-food sector than provided for in pilot ordemonstration projects. 2.6. Climate policy, that is to say, efforts to significantly
reduce greenhouse gases, especially CO
2, has been identified
as a priority within the European Commission. The EU as a
Community has also signed up to the Kyoto Agreement with
an ambitious reduction target of 8 %. One of the most3.4. Still in the field of taxation, the EU is seeking toimportant ways of achieving this target is to enforce the use ofintroduce eco-taxes. It is important that, right from the start,biomass — or wood — for energy. There are basically twoagricultural products should be exempted from such taxes onoptions open: (1) intensifying the use of forests for energythe grounds of their environmental benefits (renewability,purposes, which would provide a source of income forfavourable CO 2balance, biodegradability, lack of eco-toxicity).agriculture in forested areas of the EU without the need for
support; or (2) planting and farming ‘wood for energy’ — for
example by cultivating fast-growing, short-rotation woods onland not used for food production — which is a tried and
tested method of using non-food crops for energy. Both3.5. In addition, as the Commission points out in its paperoptions should be enshrined as part of a strategy for the use of(point 5 ‘Rural development and environment’), ‘non-food’non-food crops.crops must be incorporated into an overall agri-environmental
package.
When the Commission declares in its paper that the lack of a
specific European non-food policy does not rule out the
3.The COR’s recommendations retention of certain measures to encourage such crops, then
certain remarks need to be made:
Now that Agenda 2000 has been completed, what paths— oil-yielding crops which show a production shortfall areshould be explored to perpetuate a ‘non-food’ sector at EUnot going to be encouraged by this system of aligned directlevel?aid. If prices on the food market remain higher than those
on the non-food market, with premiums being equal, thereis a risk of a deficit occurring in oil-yielding crops destined
for biofuel production;
3.1. Although not included in Agenda 2000, a proper non-
food scheme is essential to the development of the sector. This
— the Commission points out that cultivation of non-food scheme should reflect the diversity of non-food crops and
crops has developed more in areas of arable production in propose appropriate solutions to promote their sustainable
north-western Europe than in the Mediterranean regions social, economic and environmental development in the
and less-favoured regions. Aid to the tune of 63 euros per regions concerned.
tonne multiplied by the average regional yield in cereals is
not enough to encourage the development of new non-
food crops;
3.2. In view of the disarray of previous Community initiat-
ives, a ‘non-food’ task force should be set up at Commission— it is not just crops intended for biomass production thatlevel as soon as possible, so as to have a clear view of the issueare cultivated over several years; certain industrial plantsand follow a coherent policy.can be harvested 3.5 to 7 years after being planted, and
proposals should be made that cover them.
This task force should bring together all the Directorates-
General involved: DG III (Industry), VI (Agriculture), VII
(Transport), XI (Environment), XII (Research), XVI (Regional 3.6. In general, a new crop cannot be profitable right away
unless it has undergone trials for several years. Policy), XVII (Energy), XIX (Budget) and XXI (Taxation).
8.8.2000 EN C 226/17 Official Journal of the European Communities
It is therefore necessary to continue funding and encouraging 3.8. Introducing new crops or recultivating certain species
may generate processing activities or create jobs at local level research, but it would also be a good idea to think about an
aid scheme for developing non-food crops in which industry provided the development project uses available skills and is
adapted to local conditions. has shown a real interest. In such cases, start-up aid over a
period of five to seven years would be a minimum.
In view of rural desertification, growing environmental prob-
One could also imagine aid — at different rates — assessed in lems and the difficulties that European agricultural commodi-
the light of the difference in price with the product to be ties are having in finding outlets, one must not overlook non-
replaced. food products which may help resolve certain problems; one
should instead propose a framework that is adapted to their
specific profile.3.7. It must not be forgotten that non-food products lead
to co-products that are often protein-rich and intended asanimal feed. It should be noted that the EU imports two-thirds 3.9. The objectives set out in the Commission White Paper
of its requirements of protein-rich substances. on renewable energy sources are laudable, but they cannot be
achieved unless financial provisions are adopted, which they
have not yet been. The political decision-makers, in particular It is also clear that the decoupling of aid makes the Blair House
agreements obsolete, especially the provision relating to the the Parliament, must earmark sufficient funds to achieve the
objectives they have set. equivalent of one million tonnes of soya cakes.
Brussels, 12 April 2000.
The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Jos CHABERT