OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on Reform of the Common Organization of the Market in Wine
Date: 1995-02-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common organisation of markets, viticulture, wine













EUR-Lex - 51995AC0191 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC0191

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on Reform of the Common Organization of the Market in Wine  


Official Journal C 110 , 02/05/1995 P. 0030 





Opinion on the proposal for a Council  Regulation (EC) on reform of the common organization of the market in wine ()(95/C 110/09) On 14  July 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles   43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work  on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7  February 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Kienle. At its 323rd Plenary Session (meeting of 22  February 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion by 126 votes to 8, with 13  abstentions. 1. Basic remarks 1.1. The ESC is pleased that the Commission has produced a proposal for  a Council Regulation on reform of the common organization of the market in wine. However, work in  the relevant Community bodies has been seriously disrupted because the document's release was  delayed until  May. The European Parliament elections and the re-appointment of the ESC have led to  further delays in the preparation of Opinions. 1.2. The ESC disagrees with the Commission's assertions in the Explanatory Memorandum that the  Community institutions and trade associations gave a largely positive reception to its  communication to the Council of 22  July 1993 on the development and future of wine-sector policy  (COM(93) 380 final). Quite the contrary. In fact, it is to be regretted that the Commission has  taken no account of some vital suggestions of the ESC and developed its proposal overwhelmingly  from its own Communication. 1.3. So far, discussions of the proposed regulation in the EU Council have shown that in almost all  wine-producing Member States there are serious reservations or even outright rejection of the  proposed reform. The ESC too considers the present proposals as unacceptable and calls upon the  Commission to amend radically its proposal for a regulation. 2. Comments on the individual proposals 2.1. Objective of the reform (recitals)2.1.1. The ESC maintains its basic criticism of the Commission's  proposed solution, which it clearly expressed in its Opinion of 23  February 1994. The Commission's  objective of restoring market equilibrium can be supported if it does not give rise to any burdens  being imposed unilaterally on EU producers. But the proposed quota system with reference quantities  would lead to just such unilateral discrimination because, on the basis of the EU's international  obligations arising out of the GATT decisions, only the EU's wine producers would suffer the  consequences of production cutbacks and land set-aside. The ESC concludes that, given the general legal framework, market equilibrium cannot be achieved by  a central administration run by the EU. Another solution to the EU market's problems should  therefore be sought. 2.1.2. The ESC recalls that in its discussion paper the Commission mentioned the removal of red  tape, the implementation of subsidiarity and a more self-reliant economy as further goals of wine  market reform. The attention paid to these goals in the proposed regulation of  May 1994 is totally  inadequate. The ESC will therefore put forward proposals in this Opinion for achieving these goals  more effectively. 2.1.3. The ESC repeats its call for market guidance to be made a central plank of the reform  process. This means turning away from a centrally-run market. 2.1.3.1. Instead, the European wine industry must be encouraged to become more competitive with  other countries and drinks. Moreover, trade barriers such as discriminatory excise duties between  drinks must be avoided and better sales conditions created for producers and traders. This  re-directing of European wine policy should be started at once and completed over a 10-year  transitional period. 2.1.4. The ESC advocates a clear separation of market and socio-structural policy. Irrespective of  the aims of market policy, the wine-grower's work in maintaining the rural landscape should be  rewarded. EU resources should be used to ensure the preservation of traditional wine-producing  areas which, although burdened with serious structural problems, are of special importance to the  environment and the rural economy. 2.1.5. The ESC would point out that wine production is part of the European way of life and most  wine-producing areas have a long tradition. Any reform which does not take account of this cultural  and traditional background in wine-producing regions and their preparation methods is doomed to  failure. Reform must instead give the EU's regions more responsibility for quality and market  policy, in accordance with subsidiarity. This means, at the same time, deregulation and cutting red  tape to encourage economic self-reliance and initiative. 2.1.6. The ESC thinks that EU-level rules should only cover what is absolutely necessary to the  operation of a common market for consumers and producers. Basically, rules should be laid down at  the lowest possible regional level. The Commission's proposals pay insufficient attention to these  needs. 2.2. Title I: Regional viticultural adjustment programmes2.2.1. To clarify guidelines and  responsibilities for running regional programmes, the term 'region' should be defined precisely.  The ESC does not dispute that regional viticultural adjustment programmes may be necessary for many  wine-growing areas. But the programmes proposed conflict with the aims of deregulation and  subsidiarity. To bring about a clear separation between market and social policy, the ESC suggests  that the Commission's proposed regional programmes be split up into market structural and  socio-structural programmes. Adequate EU funds need to be made available for this purpose. The ESC  considers that additional cofinancing should be provided from national or regional coffers: on the  other hand, market intervention should be funded exclusively by the EAGGF. 2.2.2. The ESC suggests that the EU restrict itself to putting forward voluntary measures which may  be applied by wine-growing areas. Care must be taken to ensure that the restructuring process is  acceptable, both socially and regionally. 2.2.3. The ESC is in favour of an EU programme which helps wine-growers who have to operate under  unfavourable conditions. This includes cultivating on steep hillsides or on ground which is  susceptible to erosion. Such a programme should help to ensure that wine-growing is not abandoned  in traditional areas for cost reasons and replaced by other vineyards which are cheaper to run but  less suitable for wine growing. The programme should also compensate growers who care for the  landscape in such traditional rural areas, which are often major centres for holidays and tourism. 2.2.4. The ESC calls for a specific wine-growing promotion programme to help environmentally  friendly economic measures. Wine-growers already feel obliged to produce in a manner which is  suited to local conditions and preserves the soil. The environmental programme should ensure that  the grower's activities conserve the environment and preserve natural resources. The political  conditions necessary to encourage this must be created on the basis of scientific knowledge and  discussion. 2.2.5. The ESC recommends that EU funds be made available to support the development of better  marketing structures in producer areas. The wine industry is made up mainly of small firms. So,  there is a danger that they may become completely dependent on a demand side which bears the stamp  of powerful concentration processes. To prevent this, energetic steps should be taken to make  supply structures more competitive in wine-growing areas. 2.2.6. The ESC suggests that social programmes for agriculture be tailored to the special needs of  wine-growing. This would include measures to encourage young farmers and provide old-age pensions  for wine-growers of both sexes, in those countries that do not have universal coverage for all  citizens. 2.2.7. The ESC suggests that a voluntary grubbing programme be introduced during the transitional  period so that vineyard capacity can be adjusted to market conditions. The 'regionalization' of  premiums might be a way of responding to varying structural and socio-economic circumstances. The  premiums in question should initially be attractive but should then be gradually phased out by the  end of the transitional period. The grubbing programmes should be run by the administrations of  wine-growing areas to forestall any adverse effects on wine-growing structures. Member States may  exclude areas or parts of wine-growing areas from grubbing programmes where grubbing up has been  above average in recent years, or whose preservation will help to maintain quality and traditional  wine-growing structures or protect the environment. 2.2.8. However, it seems essential to have a preliminary overall and up-to-date idea of all the  basic data on vineyards which have already been grubbed up and on the extent and location of those  which have been wrongly planted. A knowledge of such facts would enable better thought-out decisions to be taken on what measures  should be encouraged. 2.3. Title II: Rules governing oenological practice and processes2.3.1. The ESC would emphasize that  when production conditions are laid down and oenological practices (e.g. minimum natural alcoholic  strength, enrichment, acidification) are authorized, account must be taken of the varying  geographical, climatic and weather conditions within Europe's wine-growing regions. 2.3.2. The ESC therefore does not agree with the European Commission that the number of  wine-growing zones can be reduced from seven to three or that there can be a levelling-out of  natural minimum alcoholic strengths and oenological practices. 2.3.3. Instead it advocates that consideration be given to the classification of wine-growing zones  on the basis of objective criteria (cf. its Own-initiative Opinion of 27  October 1988 on the  demarcation of wine-growing zones in the Community). 2.3.4. The ESC considers oenological practices to be an important instrument in the promotion of a  policy aimed at improving quality. 2.3.5. The use of oenological practices to increase wine production rather than to improve quality  runs counter to the market organization's objectives, and should therefore be restricted to a  minimum. Such practices should be permitted only when a vintage suffers from the weather. 2.3.6. To prevent enrichment methods from being misused, they should be performed only for wines  for which maximum yields per hectare have been laid down. 2.3.7. The ESC is aware that traditions, experiences and opinions differ considerably with regard  to the various enrichment methods. 2.3.8. For example, chaptalization is completely scorned in wine-growing areas where enrichment is  unnecessary and banned, or is only performed with concentrated must, whereas areas where  chaptalization is authorized prefer this method to enrichment with concentrates. 2.3.9. Given the varying traditional practices and climatic and geographical conditions, the ESC  does not advocate extending the use of chaptalization to the whole of the Community. The existing  ban on chaptalization should remain in force as hitherto. The use of sucrose can continue to be  permitted only as a strictly exceptional measure in wine-growing areas which traditionally  practised chaptalization before the establishment of the European wine market organization. In order to avoid distortions of competition between the various EU producer countries, the current  aid for the use of concentrated must and rectified concentrate should be maintained. In order to inform consumers clearly about the enrichment processes used, the Council of Ministers  should adopt appropriate provisions as part of the wine description regulation. 2.4. Title III: Intervention and other measures to improve market conditions2.4.1. According to the  ESC, experience has shown that voluntary and compulsory intervention measures are not suitable  instruments for improving market conditions. The Commission's proposal for a quota system with  reference quantities in connection with compulsory distillation is rejected decisively. Instead of  reducing market interference and bureaucracy, this would create new compulsory administrative  measures, interfere with the market and produce more red tape. 2.4.1.1. Production quotas (reference quantities) are a quite unsuitable instrument for regulating  the EU wine market, which can now operate in a context of free foreign trade following the GATT  agreements. 2.4.1.2. Should the Commission's pessimistic consumer forecasts turn out to be true, with imports  from third countries (e.g. eastern Europe and overseas) rising simultaneously, European wine  growers would be expected to bear the brunt of the imbalance between supply and demand. With  imports rising more sharply, quotas for European wine growers would be cut even if there happened  to be a slight rise in the consumption of wine in the EU. 2.4.1.3. Production quotas for wine are out of step with the dynamic market trends witnessed in the  wine industry. In particular, they fail to reflect the differences between products. 2.4.1.4. In addition to these fundamental reservations about a quota scheme, the ESC is also afraid  that the proposed regulation will create new tensions between European wine-growing regions. After  all, it has not even been possible to reach an agreement in the past about reference quantities for  quotas and about their allocation within and between the Member States. 2.4.2. The ESC also thinks the whole intervention system should be simplified right away. There  should be two types of distillation: 'preventive', or voluntary distillation, to be carried out at  the beginning of the marketing year and at an attractive price, and 'compulsory' distillation,  where the price paid would be lower and based on the surplus quantities to be disposed of. Aid for private storage should be maintained at any event, as a linking measure between years where  production was in surplus and those where yields were low. 2.4.3. The ESC considers the distillation of the by-products of wine-growing, and the distillation  of quantities which exceed the maximum yield per hectare, as a measure forming part of the policy  on quality. These quantities should not therefore be eligible for subsidies from the EU's  intervention funds. 2.5. Title IV: Promotion of products of quality2.5.1. The ESC is pleased that the Commission has  clarified its proposals to promote quality products. They are a step in the right direction towards  improving the conditions for marketing wine products. However, they do not answer the ESC's call to  make the marketing of wine products a central plank of wine market reform. 2.5.2. The ESC repeats its call for a comprehensive overall programme to promote the sale of wine  products. This should cover market research, information and communications strategies, support  measures for the product and sales policy of firms involved in the wine trade, as well as the  removal of legal, economic and tax barriers to sales. 2.5.3. There is still insufficient information about market and consumption trends, which can only  be obtained through an ambitious research and market research programme. Trends should be analyzed  at retail outlets and the point of consumption (restaurant trade, households) as should consumers'  reasons for changes in purchasing or consumption habits. 2.5.4. The ESC advocates an information and educational programme about the advantages of a  moderate level of wine consumption as part of a conscious diet, and about the dangers of misuse. 2.5.5. To implement these research and information measures, considerably more EU funds are needed  than those earmarked so far by the Commission. 2.5.6. The ESC considers that the maintenance of high excise duties on wine is a barrier to sales,  whilst the Commission's idea that a wine tax might be introduced in Member States where wine is not  subject to excise duty would throttle any measures taken to improve the marketing conditions for  wine. The ESC therefore calls upon the Commission and the Council to change their excise duty  policy regarding wine and adapt it to the aims of wine market reform. 2.5.7. The ESC points out that the rules governing the labelling and presentation of the various  categories of wine vary at Community level, and that in some areas responsibility still rests with  the Member States. The multifarious rules currently in force should therefore be re-examined and a  common legal framework established for the labelling and presentation of all categories of wine.  The requirements of consumer information and modern marketing also dictate a re-examination of the  rules currently in force. The rules still to be adopted under the labelling Directive on the  identification of ingredients are a case in point in connection with the provision of consumer  information. One question needing particular attention is whether the rule that the wine label  cannot specify anything which is not explicitly allowed could be relaxed by introducing a rule  similar to the one applicable to sparkling wines which states that - in addition to the obligatory  information - the label can specify anything as long as it is not misleading. 2.6. Title V: Inter-branch organizations and agreements2.6.1. The ESC considers measures which lead to  the wine industry taking responsibility itself for adjusting supply to demand and for running  production, trading and sales structures, as important steps towards deregulation and subsidiarity  in the field of wine law. 2.6.2. The ESC does not think it urgently necessary for the reform paper to set out in detail the  rules for the recognition and activities of such organisations. Instead, the basic regulation  should simply contain a general rule for the authorization of inter-branch agreements; the  implementing provisions should be left out of the reform debate and discussed later. 3. Title VI: Amendments to Regulation (EEC) No  822/87 3.1. If the EU abandons centralised  guidance of the European wine market, the costly statistical system currently in use for observing  trends in wine-growing potential can be simplified considerably. It is therefore necessary to  simplify the proposed mechanism for assessing: - production of the various wine sector products; - the industrial utilisation of these products; - the consumption trend for wine and other products consumable without further processing; and-  management of the market, encouragement of desirable supply adjustments and organisation of  measures to promote consumption. Experiences to date with reports from firms have shown that assessment is very costly and  time-consuming. Because of market dynamics it therefore seems worthwhile trying random sampling and  panels. 3.2. The Commission's proposal to extend the ban on new plantings is welcomed. The process of  adjusting from an organised market to a free market under the responsibility of the regional wine  industry should not be hampered by extensions of the local or regional vineyard, especially during  the change-over period. 3.3. The right to replanting and the transfer of replanting rights should, moreover, be used  without restriction so that the best land in wine-growing areas is planted out in accordance with a  policy on quality. The Commission should not be able to restrict replanting rights in order to  adjust wine-growing potential to market requirements. The allocation and use of EU replanting  rights should be decided at regional level. 3.4. The classification of vine varieties should be standardised at EU level but implementation  should be transferred to the regions. 4. Title VII: Non-regional abandonment programme for areas under vines As already stated in Title  I, the ESC only supports a voluntary grubbing programme which is independent of regional  programmes. The amount of the premium does not seem sufficient to lead to extensive use of the  programme. 5. Title VIII: Amendment of Regulation (EEC) No  823/87 The ESC believes that, in accordance with  the principle of subsidiarity, regulating the yield per hectare must be the responsibility of the  regions. Any provisos which further restrict the Member States' room for manoeuvre are therefore  rejected. 6. Title IX: Amendments to Regulation (EEC) No  2048/89 The ESC supports measures which are  necessary to improve the efficiency of monitoring and ensure uniform application of EU law. But the  proposed programmes are seen as extra red tape. The ESC calls for a review aimed at simplifying  legal provisions concerning reports, accounts, accompanying documents and other wine monitoring  measures. Cooperation between official supervisory authorities in the Member States should be  improved as soon as possible. 7. Title X: Simplified vineyard register Simplification of the vineyard register is among the  things to be done to bring about deregulation and less bureaucracy in EU wine law. Quite apart from  any simplification of EU law, it should be left to the Member States and regions to implement any  further measures for managing their market. 8. Final remarks 8.1. The ESC calls on the Council to immediately press on with its talks on  reforming the wine market and bring them to a conclusion as soon as possible, as the European wine  industry needs reliable framework conditions for the future. 8.2. The talks should be pursued in a spirit of dialogue, as called for by the Commission, so as to  find mutually acceptable solutions. An open confrontation between wine-growing regions would, in  the final analysis, be harmful to all wine-growing regions and to the image of wine as a cultural  asset. Done at Brussels, 22  February 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C  194, 16. 7. 1994, p. 1.