Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation on information provision and promotion for agricultural products on the internal market"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU production, agricultural product, foodstuff, public awareness campaign, sales promotion, single market

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/51

for southern European Union countries, where rest periods are
far shorter than in the northern countries. One solution might
be use ‘periods of activity’ rather than predetermined time-
bands for all the Member States, which would mean removing
the reference to the indicator for the Levening period. Further-
more, the definition of an ‘average meteorological year’ might
complicate compiling (and subsequently updating) noise maps

within the deadlines set. On the other hand, the Committee
fully agrees with the inclusion of noise indicators for special
cases.

Annex V: reword the fourth indent as follows: ‘limit

3.5.
values in agglomerations according to Article 5’.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on
information provision and promotion for agricultural products on the internal market’

(2001/C 116/11)

On 26 September 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Espuny Moyano.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 110 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The Commission proposal sets out to harmonise and
1.1.
simplify the way the various current Community promotion
schemes on the internal market are governed, by means of a
single, ‘across the board’ instrument.

1.2.
Following the approach taken to promoting agricul-
tural products outside the EU, the Commission believes that
the aim of the instrument must be information provision and
promotion of a generic character, focusing on the intrinsic
features of European products in order to upgrade their image
in the eyes of consumers.

The Commission proposes to periodically choose,
1.4.
using the management committee procedure, the themes and
sectors that are to be the subject of information provision and
promotion.

1.4.1.
Under these arrangements, the management com-
mittee will lay down guidelines by sector and establish the
selection criteria.

On the basis of calls for proposals organised by the
1.5.
Member States, the trade and inter-trade organisations will
submit programmes which the Member States will refer to the
Commission to ensure conformity with Community rules and
the relevant specification. The final selection will then be made
by the Member States.

1.3.
In this respect, the Commission considers that Com-
munity promotion measures must be complementary with
those undertaken in the Member States by companies or
national or regional authorities, and should bring added value
to classic marketing and branded advertising activities.

The Commission proposes an indirect management
1.6.
system in which the Member States will be responsible for
surveillance and payments.

C 116/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

1.7.
It is proposed that financing be jointly provided by the
Community, the Member States and the trade and inter-trade
organisations, so that all the players involved assume their
responsibilities.

It is proposed that the Community’s contribution
1.7.1.
should not exceed 50 % of the actual cost of action, except for
impact assessments of completed information and promotion
measures, which will be fully funded by the Community.

1.7.2. Member State contribution is, in general, to be 20 %
of the actual cost of actions. The rest is to be financed by trade
or inter-trade organisations.

1.7.3.
However, the Commission believes that financing
for information measures on the Community’s Protected
Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indi-
cation (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG)
schemes, and for those on organic production and labelling,
should be restricted to the Member States and the Community.

2. General comments

This promotional initiative, which the ESC welcomes
2.1.
in general terms, complements the promotional tool adopted
in 1999 towards countries outside the EU (1) and helps meet
the objective of promoting a European food and agricultural
model based on diversity, quality and safety, both within the
European Union and throughout
the world.
The ESC does, however, have reservations concerning the
procedures proposed by the Commission.

the rest of

The ESC regrets that this objective is not spelled out
2.1.1.
sufficiently clearly in the proposal:
the priority aims of
promotion within the single market must be to disseminate
the European agricultural and food model based on multifunc-
tionality and on the concepts set out earlier, and to boost
consumer confidence in farm and food products.

2.1.2.
The image of European products in the eyes of EU
consumers must be improved, and they must be made aware
of the efforts under way to guarantee them a wide range of
typical products and high standards in terms of quality, food
safety and compliance with animal welfare regulations.

(1) OJ C 169, 16.6.1999.

2.1.3.
The ESC therefore shares the Commission’s aim to
make more information available at Community level on the
intrinsic characteristics of food and agricultural products, such
as quality, hygiene, nutritional value, food safety, labelling,
traceability, organic or integrated methods of production,
Community PDO/, PGI/ TSG systems, quality wine produced
in a specified region, table wines and spirits with geographical
indication.

2.1.4.
The ESC also supports extending the potential benefit
of Community promotional action on the internal market to
other food and agricultural products.

2.2.
from a
For the European Union to fully benefit
Community system for promoting European products on
its internal market, this system must complement and be
coordinated with initiatives by businesses, organisations and
national authorities in their respective Member States.

As with promotion in countries outside the EU, a
2.2.1.
Community system for promoting food and agricultural
products on the internal market must be based on the
principles of subsidiarity and complementarity.

2.2.2.
The ESC therefore welcomes the Commission’s com-
prehensive and coherent approach to harmonising the many
Community systems for promotion on the internal market
and replacing them with a single framework for financing and
managing promotion.

2.3.
The ESC stresses the importance of co-financing pro-
motional actions. This will allow resources to be pooled and
enable all the interested parties to be involved and share
responsibility, thus making promotional actions as efficient as
possible and making the best use of financial resources. It
must, however, emphasise the importance of the 20 % co-
financing by the Member State. However, in certain cases, it
should be possible to be flexible about the co-financing.

2.4.
From the three-fold perspective of subsidiarity, comp-
lementarity and co-financing, the trade organisations and
national authorities must work in an active and coordinated
manner with the Commission in designing, selecting, manag-
ing and assessing Community actions for promotion on the
internal market.

2.4.1.
As in the case of promotion in third countries, the
ESC regrets that the Commission has not made more of the
implications and benefits of subsidiarity, complementarity and
co-financing for promotional management.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/53

2.4.2. More specifically, it regrets the extreme complexity
of the proposed procedure and the inadequate involvement of
economic actors.

concerning the list of eligible themes and products (Article 4)
and in drawing up the guidelines for information and pro-
motion programmes (Article 5). To this end, the ESC proposes
the following:

2.5.
Finally, the ESC considers that the proposed instrument
must be given sufficient resources if it is to meet the ambitious
objective of improving the image of European products in the
eyes of consumers and defending the European food and
agricultural model within the EU itself.

3.3.1. mandatory rather than optional consultation of the
Standing Group on Agricultural Product Promotion of the
Advisory Committee on Quality and Health in Agricultural
Production with regard to the three-yearly establishment of
the list of eligible themes and products (Article 4(2));

2.5.1.
The importance of adequate financial resources is
underscored by the fact that this policy aims both to increase
promotion internally and externally and to widen the range of
products being promoted.

3.3.2. mandatory consultation of the standing group before
drafting the guidelines for information and promotion pro-
grammes (Article 5(1)).

2.5.2.

The ESC

— is disappointed that the budget proposed by the Com-

mission is, however, clearly insufficient;

— expresses its concern that the expected budget increase
for promotion in countries outside the EU will lead to a
drop in resources intended for promotion within the EU;

— is worried, finally, that the insufficient budget may give
rise to major tensions between sectors and products.

3.

Specific comments

3.1.
Information and promotion measures must not be
brand-oriented (Article 1(2)); this must not, however, result in
generic actions forming part of broader national or private
promotional campaigns with brand-oriented elements being
automatically denied the benefits of Community promotion.
This is essential if Community action is to be effective, and
complementary to national and private initiatives.

3.4.
The Committee believes mandatory collaboration
between trade organisations and implementing bodies, as
stipulated by Article 6(2), to be unnecessary, further complicat-
ing an already complex selection procedure. Implementation
of such programmes by the organisations themselves should
not be ruled out, provided they can display experience in the
field and provide appropriate guarantees of proper execution.

3.5.
Lastly, the ESC notes that the planned Community
resources are far less than those presently earmarked for this
purpose. It considers these resources to be clearly insufficient
to achieve the final objectives of promotion on the single
market, particularly since it is planned to extend promotion to
all products. The low budget might explain the Explanatory
Memorandum’s vagueness about the real objectives of the
Community action.

3.5.1.
In order to prevent conflicts with external promotion
activities and between sectors or products, the Committee calls
upon the Commission, the European Parliament and the
Council to take the necessary steps to provide the instrument
with suitable resources.

4.

Final recommendations

The measures eligible for Community promotion
3.2.
under Article 2(a) include public relations work, promotion
and advertising designed to draw attention to the advantages
of Community products in animal welfare terms. The selection
criterion for sectors and products set out in Article 3(a) should
therefore also mention this concern for animal welfare.

4.1.
Safeguarding the European agricultural model and
boosting consumer confidence in Community farm and food
products are among the priorities set by Common Agricultural
Policy reform under Agenda 2000. Upgrading the image of
European produce in consumers’ eyes through Community
information and promotion initiatives on the single market
must be the clearly signalled aim of this initiative.

In view of the joint financing approach proposed by
3.3.
the Commission, it is essential to harness the experience and
active involvement of private organisations in decisions

4.2.
If the benefits of Community-level promotion are to
be maximised, it is crucial that all the players — trade and
inter-trade organisations, Commission, Member States — work
together in a complementary, coordinated way. Against this

C 116/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

backdrop, private sector involvement and experience are
essential. This must be reflected in the design, formulation and
implementation of programmes, especially in order to avoid
red tape.

4.3.
Resources for promotion on the single market must
match the ambitions. Inadequate resources will not only limit
the effectiveness of the instrument, but will also generate
unnecessary tensions between eligible sectors and products.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial
movement of pet animals’

(2001/C 116/12)

On 10 October 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles
37 and 152(4)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Leif E. Nielsen.

At its 377th plenary session of 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to one with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

have been recorded in the EU primarily relate to animals from
regions in non-EU countries where rabies is endemic. The
proposal provides for more stringent control on entry from
third countries and is based on the opinions of several groups
of experts, including the Scientific Veterinary Committee.

Fears of rabies and other diseases transmitted by
1.1.
household pets have prompted certain Member States to
introduce restrictions on the non-commercial movement of
dogs, cats and other pets from other Member States and
third countries. The Commission’s proposal harmonises the
common rules governing external protection and limits
internal restrictions. A number of the diseases concerned solely
affect animal health while others (‘zoonoses’, and especially
rabies) also impact on human beings. Hence the Commission’s
view is that harmonisation should be implemented under the
common decisionmaking procedure.

1.2.
The rabies situation in the EU has radically improved
as a result of oral vaccination of foxes in regions where rabies
is endemic. Sweden and the United Kingdom have therefore
done away with their earlier quarantine arrangements and
introduced less restrictive provisions. The cases of rabies that

1.3.
Under the proposal, dogs and cats moving between the
Member States or from specified third countries and territories
which can, in line with a regional approach, be assimilated to
the Community (Andorra,
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco,
Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, the Vatican, the Isle of Man
and the Channel Islands), must be accompanied by their
owners or a natural person who has responsibility for them
during travel. Animals must be identified by a tattoo or
transponder and be accompanied by a rabies vaccination
certificate; except in the case of first vaccination, such vacci-
nation must have been carried out less than one year before-
hand with an inactivated vaccine complying with WHO
standards.