Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 12 September 2012 - Strasbourg

16. Agricultural product quality schemes (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A7-0266/2011) by Iratxe García Pérez, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes (COM(2010)0733 - C7-0423/2010 - 2010/0353(COD))

  Iratxe García Pérez, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, two legislative proposals comprise the so-called ‘quality package’, which was presented in December 2010: one on agricultural product quality schemes, which basically covers the rules on geographical indications and other voluntary schemes, and the other amending the articles in the single common market organisation (CMO) that refer to the marketing standards that agricultural products should fulfil to be sold within the European Union.

With respect to the latter, the Council has not been able to agree on a full negotiating mandate, meaning we have not even been able to debate the position adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development over a year ago, a position that Mr Dantin has now included in his report on the single CMO. I hope this wider context leads to negotiation.

When it comes to the proposal for regulation before us today, the trialogue concluded with an agreement on 20 June 2012, an agreement we hope to see ratified in this part-session.

After the ‘milk package’, it is the second agricultural dossier to be adopted by means of the ordinary legislative procedure, and it was a good running-in process to undertake the important negotiations that await us with the reform of the common agricultural policy.

The idea behind the geographical indications system is to protect designations that identify a product as originating from a particular area and to attribute to it the quality, reputation and other characteristics that differentiate and enhance it, due to either its origin or its mode of production.

It undoubtedly means a potential economic opportunity for farmers and food producers, which is very beneficial to the rural economy, although it is first and foremost a system for registering and protecting intellectual property rights, a system that has been in place since 1992 and is already one of the hallmarks of European agriculture. Since then, it has protected registered product names in the Union in a uniform and harmonised manner. Proof of its success can be seen in the fact that there has been a constant increase in registered products since the system was introduced.

The Commission’s proposal was not as far reaching as expected given the overview contained in the Green Paper. It must be acknowledged, however, that the system has been simplified and harmonised, and coherent rules have been put in place as required. One of the objectives the Commission took very much into account in their proposals was the strengthening and simplification of quality systems.

I want to highlight other improvements, such as the strengthening of monitoring rules. Each Member State is a market, not only for its own ‘designation of origin’ or ‘protected geographical indication’ (PGI) products, but also for those from other Member States. They should all ensure the appropriate use and effective protection of all the indications.

The use of Union logos will be compulsory from now on. This is essential to rectify the lack of consumer knowledge of the geographical indication system.

The traditional specialty guaranteed (TSG) scheme is not undergoing such a radical change as was initially proposed. A transitional period for TSGs to exist without reserving a name has been established, a simplified system is introduced, and a 30-year period is established for the use of the term ‘traditional’.

A quality system is set up for mountain farming products, as requested by Parliament, the operation and details of which will be developed by the Commission, ensuring it has a uniform, community-based focus. I will take this opportunity, Commissioner, to pass on to you a question that I have been asked more than once since we reached the agreement: When do you estimate this quality system will be ready and in operation?

Undoubtedly, the role of producer groups is strengthened and acknowledged more than in the initial proposal, although not as much as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development would have liked. Those present here know that every effort was made so that the final agreement would give them an active role in the repositioning of production to the market, as was agreed with ‘designation of origin’ or PGI cheese producers in the milk package.

It was not possible with this regulation. It was not possible to overcome the Council’s opposition to accepting for this case what it had already approved for the dairy sector. For our part, almost all the political groups have acted constructively by adopting the agreement we have reached.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, today’s vote in Parliament marks an important development in the European Union’s agricultural product quality policy. As a member of the European Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have always attached great importance to this subject, for I believe that the future of the European agricultural product industry, particularly on the international market, resides in its quality and diversity.

The Commission welcomes the compromise reached during the trialogue of 20 June. I would like to point out that this trialogue took place in a truly constructive atmosphere, which I welcome, because we managed to reach a balanced and satisfactory outcome. The end result of this work is a compromise in the best meaning of the word: everyone has given a little or ceded on one point or another, including on important points, and everyone has also achieved genuine improvements.

Ms García Pérez is of the view that the Commission’s proposals were not very ambitious. However, on other points, the Commission too expected Parliament to be more ambitious in relation to its own proposals. So finally I think that we have managed to reach a compromise which is satisfactory for all parties.

I would particularly like to thank Ms García Pérez for her constructive approach and her endeavour to understand the reasons behind the Commission’s proposal on points that I think are essential if we want to be able to say that there has been an improvement in the agricultural product quality policy. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteur as well as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which contributed a great deal to this project, and also the Council, the Danish Presidency and the previous Presidencies for their hard work.

We now have a well-balanced, satisfactory text on the table. It is true to say that the future regulation on quality systems will allow us to reinforce and simplify European policy on quality. From now on, we shall have a single instrument for geographical indications, designations of origin, traditional specialities and optional quality mentions. It will bring significant improvements to the protection scheme for these quality instruments that will create greater visibility for consumers.

This framework for a coherent, strengthened, quality policy will undoubtedly best serve all the different producers, products and consumers in the European Union.

I can therefore conclude by confirming that the Commission supports this political agreement and I hope that Parliament will adopt it tomorrow.

To answer Ms García Pérez’ question concerning the specific mention for mountain areas, we shall finalise the proposal as soon as the impact assessment has been carried out.

I would like to finish by saying a few words about comitology. During the trialogue on the draft regulation, the Commission agreed not to adopt the draft implementing act if the committee responsible for it did not provide an opinion, in which case Article 5(4), third subparagraph of Regulation No 182/2011 will apply. That goes against the Commission’s general rule, but in this particular case, agreement could not have been reached if it had made an objection on this point.

Therefore, in a spirit of compromise, the Commission was reluctant to oppose a qualified majority in favour of the Presidency’s text and wishes to make the following statement: the Commission stresses that it is against the spirit of Regulation No 182/2011 to invoke Article 5(4), second subparagraph, point b), systematically. Recourse to this provision must respond to a specific need to waive the general rule whereby the Commission can adopt a draft implementing act when no opinion is provided.

Given that this is an exception to the general rule provided for in Article 5(4), recourse to point b) of the second subparagraph cannot simply be considered to be a discretionary power of the legislator, but must be interpreted strictly and must therefore be justified.

To conclude, I should like to note that the two institutions have thought it appropriate to continue discussions on trading standards, in particular, and also on other points which had initially been envisaged in this draft regulation within the framework of the reform of the common agricultural policy currently being discussed, and the Commission will provide the support needed to ensure a successful outcome.

  Herbert Dorfmann, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that this legislation is an important step forward for designations of origin in Europe. We now have around 1 000 such designations in Europe and each year these account for sales of around EUR 15 billion, representing 4.5% of our food market in Europe. These products are constantly gaining in importance. These figures show just how important these designations of origin have become.

The rapporteur, whom I would like to thank for her cooperation in recent months, has already indicated the benefits of the new regulation. We shall have less red tape, greater public protection for designations of origin and new designation options, such as the ‘mountain products’ designation the Commissioner has just mentioned. That is major progress.

I very much regret that we have not succeeded in apportioning greater importance to the support consortia. There is no doubt that these products are perceived by consumers as brands. Anyone who claims that consumers do not recognise names like Pata Negra or Parmigiano Reggiano as brands is misunderstanding the situation. Support consortia lack a central element in market leadership, however. They are unable to decide on the amount of product to be put on offer. Unfortunately it has not been possible to reach agreement in this area with the Council, which is notable by its absence today. I hope that we will manage to find such agreement during the debate on agricultural reform.

I also find it quite unhelpful that an amendment should now be tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, which we are to vote on tomorrow and which moves in this direction. My group agrees with the substance of this amendment and would vote in favour if this was the only issue. We know, however, that this would prevent the adoption of the regulation at first reading, which is why we shall have to vote against it. Thus, this is not particularly helpful and achieves no progress. I hope that the Greens will support us when we raise this subject as part of agricultural reforms.

  Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation on agricultural product quality schemes, on which we will be voting tomorrow, is the second most important legislative provision in which Parliament has been fully involved under the ordinary legislative procedure for agricultural legislation.

As happened with the Milk Regulation, Parliament has again managed to introduce significant amendments to improve the Commission’s proposal. I would highlight, for example, the stricter rules to protect certified products against misuse and imitation (the so-called ex officio rule); the new system of optional quality terms, starting with the ‘product of mountain farming’ quality term; area marks; and greater simplification in the authorisation procedures for Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) products. I would also like to mention the amendment to the list in the annex, which at last makes it possible for chocolate to enjoy a protected geographical indication. Allow me to take this opportunity to greet the friends of Modica chocolate who are here in this Chamber.

These are just a few of the many amendments that Parliament has successfully introduced to strengthen the prospect of leveraging quality in order to compete in the sector. This was made possible by the excellent work done by the rapporteur, Ms García Pérez, whom I thank, as well as the shadow rapporteurs and the entire Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

The only regrettable fact, as the rapporteur herself mentioned, is that Parliament has not managed to persuade the Council of the need to extend production planning, which we usefully introduced in the milk package, to all the other protected designations of origin, particularly in the ham sector. However, as has been pointed out by Mr Dorfmann, one of the shadow rapporteurs, we shall not fail to do so in the debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy, and on the single common market organisation document in particular.

  Britta Reimers, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we now have three years of discussions and negotiations under our belts in a process that occasionally stalled and sometimes got quite tough. We set ourselves the goal of simplifying the quality systems, ensuring the reliability of quality and also establishing a way to get better prices for farmers. We did not succeed in controlling marketing standards or the regulation of supply. We now intend doing this in the common organisation of the markets. Overall, however, it must said that we have taken a first step towards a uniform quality policy. The long time spent in negotiations also shows how much we have struggled among ourselves to reach an agreement and that it is not always easy to make progress at first reading.

The agreement has now also been confirmed by the Council. Speaking on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I have no choice other than to support the compromise before us and to ask you to support the amendments. We have failed to achieve a lot of what we wanted. The ALDE Group was not happy with the introduction of another new quality characteristic like the mountain products, however when one considers what has been achieved overall as a package, then we can support this. I think our colleagues will also be satisfied with this.

  Alyn Smith, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I suspect I will feel a little bit like Banquo’s ghost in this debate, in that my group is manifestly not as content or happy with the outcome of this process as other groups. I would record my appreciation to our rapporteur, who has worked very hard on this, the shadows also, but the fact is we could have done better. I gently suggest to Mr Dorfmann that, if you support the text of our amendment, then support it now.

We are the colegislator on agricultural issues. If we could have done better than we have achieved at present, let us stick to our guns and deliver more for our quality products than is on the table. I do not think we have won anything like what we could have won had we stuck to our original ambitions within the committee.

That is not to say that there are not things to admire; there are steps forward and that is positive. We see that the Council is not here today, as Mr Dorfmann says, and they have not treated us well throughout this process. Amendment 87 was a key priority for our committee, but it was not taken seriously enough. We have retabled it as Amendment 103, and I do urge colleagues to support it. If that means that we do not get a first-reading agreement, then we come back as colegislator to do our job.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8).)

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I noted Mr Smith’s commitment with great surprise. I would be interested to know the role he personally played in the negotiations concerning the relevant paragraph, because I have heard from some of my colleagues that his commitment in the negotiations left a lot to be desired, even with regard to our demands.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – Thank you for that question. I understand German well enough, but I had to use the headphones for that.

The commitment of our group to this process has been total. If you are making a reference to a meeting that I may have missed, well, all colleagues miss meetings from time to time and we all have other things to do in other places. That in no way weakens the commitment or involvement of our group in these discussions, or the commitment to Amendment 87 on behalf of all our parties.

I would have thought that, if it was a priority in the committee vote, it should have been a priority within the trialogue negotiations. It was not treated seriously by the Council, which has not treated this Parliament with the respect a colegislator deserves. We could do better than is on the table at present.

  Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this report potentially offers a very good opportunity for agriculture.

By improving the quality of agricultural output, not only will the supply side move agriculture away from the production of basic raw-material commodities, for which it receives basic raw-material prices, but there will also be an opportunity to add real value to the products.

The types of strategy that might come into play here include building and exploiting regional identities, building and exploiting brands and points of differentiation, and better marketing of products whether that be through cooperation, strategic alliances or moving closer to the marketplace.

These strategies do not just add considerably to producers’ incomes, they can also create and sustain a large number of jobs in the rural sector, they contribute strongly to growth in the rural economy, and they will significantly reduce dependence on subsidy support from the common agricultural policy.

However, I have two criticisms of this report. First, it is too focused on the domestic or European market. We should not forget that European products possess some of the best-recognised and strongest identities in the world, but that export potential is not being fully exploited at the present time. I therefore suggest that we should be doing more to help stimulate this important trade.

Second, we are keen to support and encourage regional and producer organisations. But such organisations should not be empowered to restrict or control output levels. In practice, that would amount to an unofficial quota system which, in the short term, would be anti-competitive and, in the long term, would mean missing opportunities for efficiency gains and wider market exploitation.

  Giancarlo Scottà, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I must thank Ms García Pérez for her long and patient work over the last year to reach an agreement that is as close as possible to Parliament’s position.

The course of events started back in 2009 with our own-initiative report on quality products, which highlighted certain important issues on which we have achieved results today and others on which we still have work to do. The outcome we have secured is a success for all those producers, associations and cooperatives that have supported us over these years, and acknowledges their commitment to quality.

The importance of their work is highlighted in this report, since the Member States are enabled to promote the establishment and operation of such groups. The positive outcomes obtained are due to the teamwork shown by Parliament’s delegation to the meetings with the other institutions. They include ex officio protection, whereby the Member States must protect products with quality marks, even where they are used as ingredients in processed products, without waiting for producers to make a complaint.

In contrast to the measures introduced in Mr Nicholson’s report on contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector, production management for quality marks in other sectors has been left out of the report now being debated. It was simply not possible to reach agreement on production planning, a crucial issue for our producers. They wanted this instrument above all to make it possible to balance demand and supply. We will continue working alongside our fellow Members to achieve this outcome as well.

Lastly I would like to thank the Italian associations that represent the cooperatives, which have worked with us and will continue to do so.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work that has been done on this important subject.

Northern Ireland has, to date, three protected geographical indications: the early Comber potato, the Armagh Bramley apple and the Lough Neagh eel. While I welcome the official recognition of these products, there must be adequate safeguards in place to protect not only the standing of the products but also the scheme itself. This report goes some way to addressing that.

If quality schemes are to be meaningful and useful in the marketing of products, then it is imperative that those products retain their authenticity. This is especially true of products that require traditional production steps but must also be manageable in today’s global market. It is important too that the registration and monitoring of those using quality schemes must be fit for purpose but not restrictive. The success of a quality scheme will depend on its capacity to stay relevant to the consumer and to add value whilst maintaining exclusivity and regional brand identity.

Finally, while we continue to improve quality schemes in the EU, I think Parliament and the Commission should do more to protect EU citizens from poor-quality imports which do not meet the same high standards, and should put an end to the hypocrisy in this regard and the unfair competition for our farmers.

  Esther Herranz García (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the rapporteur, Ms García Pérez, should be congratulated on her work and on the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council of Ministers. It is shame that the Council is not represented here tonight with us.

The new quality system for agricultural products is a simplification of the current system and a streamlining of current authorisation procedures, and that is good news. It is also a good achievement to have included the obligation to use the Union logo for designations of origin and protected geographical indications, given that it increases the exposure of European products.

I think it is also worth noting that the provisions for protecting quality designations in bilateral agreements with third countries are strengthened, and that a legal basis for defending the European Union logo in those third countries is created, as I honestly think that the protection of European products in third countries should be a fundamental objective.

It is a shame that this package has been somewhat stripped back during the negotiations and, I will say it again, it is a shame that the Council is not here to hear it, because the original quality package proposed by the Commission has been rather forgotten and the marketing standards and management of supply through quality designations of origin have been cut from the agreement, leaving it, as I said, a little empty.

I think the Council’s blinkered attitude on these two issues is regrettable, as they refused to listen to Parliament’s reasonable positions. Supply management by means of designations of origin should have been defended, and will of course be defended in the single common market organisation.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, because standardised EU labelling enhances the competitiveness of our producers. I would like to draw the attention of Commissioner Cioloş to the fact that Hungary has introduced an entirely unique labelling system that has no relevance whatsoever to EU conformity, because it is not at all related to what has been established here in Europe as a result of the work of the rapporteur and the Commission and the present joint decision. After all, what we need is not to be world-famous in Hungary but to be in compliance with the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications in Europe. I therefore ask the Commissioner to remind the Hungarian Government that the only way to further the interests of Hungarian producers is to ensure that the Hungarian labelling system complies with the system just adopted by the European Union.

  George Lyon (ALDE). - Mr President, I too welcome the agreement on this legislative package on quality products. Hopefully the package should streamline and simplify the administration and bureaucracy faced by organisations and farmers wishing to register quality products.

The package should hopefully speed up the process, as well as giving stronger powers to producer organisations in marketing their quality food produced in the EU. And, as Richard Ashworth pointed out, there are tremendous opportunities to add value and hopefully give a greater return to producers through that adding of value.

I believe it was a correct decision to separate out the proposal for supply control to be given to producer organisations, to allow the rest of the package to be agreed. This contentious proposal can now be discussed as part of the single CMO package.

I would personally like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs García Pérez, for all the hard work she has undertaken to progress this dossier. While I completely disagreed with the supply control part of the package, I am very happy to support the efforts made to strengthen and improve EU quality policy.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, the Czech Republic is one of the new Member States in which producers have registered the greatest number of protected European marks. This shows that interest in this marks is relatively strong. Producers are doing this themselves, voluntarily, because they firmly believe that it will help them on the market.

The quality of food and agricultural products is also becoming a very important topic for consumers. They are gradually learning to understand the European mark and its symbolism used on labels. It would be wrong to think that everyone now understands this mark. Nonetheless we are well on the way, and the numbers of people who do know this mark are rising steadily. I firmly believe that this system mainly needs long-term stability. Only thus can we reach a situation where all consumers will know it and take account of it in their decision-making. Frequent and extensive changes will not help us, and will only lead to confusion. It is important for producers that the procedures and requirements for obtaining these marks be clear and straightforward.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). - (PL) Mr President, I agree with the rapporteur that our priorities should include simplifying and developing the existing system, and adding new quality terms, which can create greater value for Europe’s best products. I hope that these proposals will improve the existing complex system, and that this will be a step in the right direction, although it will certainly not be the last.

As we all know very well, European agriculture provides us with a wide range of foods produced using many different methods, which consistently respect the environment and rural communities. It would be helpful if both farmers and consumers in particular were aware of the special characteristics of home grown food. Such a quality-oriented approach is bound to help strengthen the presence of high quality products both in domestic and international markets.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am convinced that the future of farming lies in quality. Quality must be worthwhile, however. For this reason, I expressly welcome the fact that the decision on the quality package will create measures that will highlight European quality and further secure protected designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional specialities. It is also very important that these products should be protected beyond Europe’s borders and that processes cannot be cheaply copied. Successful programmes are recognised by consumers.

We have very positive experience with brand registration in Austria. The designated products enjoy a good reputation. However, measures are required on a Europe-wide basis that will promote sales and increase brand recognition. At the same time, we also need measures to enable more of such brands to be registered. Agricultural producers need user-friendly support with registration.

I also expressly welcome the introduction of labelling for products from mountain areas. This is clearly the handiwork of the European Parliament and I would like to thank the negotiators for their dedication in this context. This new, counterfeit-proof label is a milestone for dairy producers. Milk production in mountain areas is hard work and is associated with the highest quality standards. Consumers associate products from mountain regions with an untouched landscape, cows freely grazing the meadows, feeding on hay in the winter, and small farms. It must be possible for the greater effort and higher production costs involved to command a better product price. We need to keep on working on this.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to welcome the efforts being made by the European Parliament and the European Commission to propose clear improvements to quality schemes. However, the proposals on mountain products also need to apply to island agricultural products, so that they too can be integrated into the voluntary quality scheme. We all understand the peculiarities of islands, their serious and permanent drawbacks, their physical and demographic problems, their distance from the mainland, their small size, their difficult terrain, their specific climate and their dependence on activities with limited potential. Many of these elements lend specific and particular quality characteristics to agricultural products and the labelling of such products as island products would increase their added value. I would therefore ask the Commissioner to stipulate what action is planned to promote these prospects and, of course, if possible, within what timeframe.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, the quality of European agricultural products is world class and excellent. To promote the sale of these high quality products and to raise consumer awareness, we need quality schemes for agricultural products and food.

I am very pleased with the report by my colleague, Ms García Pérez, who has achieved an excellent result in negotiations. I am also very pleased that the report now obliges the Commission to present a report to Parliament and to the Council on the case for a new local-farming and direct sales labelling scheme. This is a genuine step forward in the promotion of a short supply chain and locally produced food. Farmers will now be given a real opportunity to acquire added value for their products by means of the new labels. We nevertheless have to ensure that the new labelling scheme becomes suitable for all Member States. Restrictions that are too harsh will do nothing to encourage this excellent initiative. The scheme needs to take account, for example, of sparsely inhabited regions and long distances in some of our Member States.

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, first of all I would like to take the opportunity to thank the rapporteur for all her hard work on this report. I am only too well aware that this file has been subject to very tricky and intricate negotiations. It has not been easy, by any means, but it is good that we have managed to reach a final agreement.

I think that quality production is a great way to add value to what is being produced on our farms throughout the European Union and therefore will, hopefully, increase the profit margins of the producers and all involved in the supply chain. In this regard, it is definitely something that our agriculture sector should be exploring as part of the strategy, in order to ensure its future growth and sustainability especially in relation to exports.

However, I am a bit wary about the issue of supply management and I seriously doubt whether the measure will prove to be of any benefit to farmers. I would therefore certainly advise the House to vote against Mr Smith’s amendment 103.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to join with everyone else in thanking the rapporteur. You never get everything you want from a trialogue but in this case I believe she has done a pretty good job.

My Member State, the UK, has not historically always been at the front of the queue when it came to applying for and using these quality schemes, but we are catching up very fast. These provisions will make it easier to continue with this trend.

I am particularly pleased with the agreement on Traditional Speciality Guaranteed products. The Commission proposal would have wiped out the majority of UK products with this status and this has now been avoided. I look forward to being involved in the future discussions on the creation of new labels for local farming, which I believe represent real opportunities for food products and food producers and is something that we should get on with as soon as we can once this package is agreed.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, hard work by all the Members of this House has enabled us to reach the final vote on agricultural product quality schemes.

The outcome of the negotiations with the Council is excellent, in my view. The ex officio rule, the new possibilities for labelling and the amendments to the annex – which allow further products, such as chocolate, access to EU quality marks – are just a few examples. There is just one regrettable fact, Commissioner, which is that the Council refused to agree to production planning by protection cooperatives, which has left a rather bitter taste in the mouth.

You may be sure, Commissioner, that this Parliament will propose the subject again during the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy, not least so as to avoid differential treatment compared with other production sectors that have already secured such recognition. Tomorrow we will all – including myself – vote against the amendment which, although it seems acceptable – is in fact too late to be assessed positively.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the European Union enjoys competitive advantages over the other global competitors in several areas. One such advantage is the production and marketing of high quality agricultural products. I believe the current proposal will enable European farmers to benefit from additional means of communicating to consumers essential details of the products they purchase. It will also improve the functioning of national and private certification systems.

This will have a significant impact on Romanian farmers and producers. Establishing a traditional specialities guaranteed scheme will stimulate traditional production methods and recipes. At the moment, many Romanian producers are unable to promote their recipes and products that provide added value.

Last but not least, I believe that simplifying marketing standards and place-of-farming labelling will have a positive impact on the European consumers.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, thank you for giving me a chance to say a few words on this important and interesting topic. I would like to thank the rapporteur for her good work.

I think one of the things that we have not highlighted enough in terms of the common agriculture policy and farming is the fact that there has been a gradual improvement in quality in every respect during the lifetime of the CAP. The environment has improved, water quality has improved, biodiversity continues to improve and, of course, the quality of the food produced is constantly improving.

We have, without any doubt, a guarantee that food can be traced from farm to fork, but sometimes the primary producers have not benefitted from this, and these proposals should help to ensure that happens, particularly if we streamline the bureaucracy and ensure that the solutions are simple ones. The EU logos will be a big help, and I think consumers will become familiar with them more quickly than we expect.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, measures to recognise and defend the quality of certain agricultural products are positive and undoubtedly play an important role in raising production value and thus producer income, informing consumers and promoting healthy eating habits. However, quality schemes cannot be a panacea for solving the multiple problems that are facing agriculture and the rural world today, especially in less developed regions.

Under the continued liberalisation policies and the deregulation of markets for agricultural products, it will be very difficult to ensure the continuity of many high-quality productions, with great relevance for the cohesion of the rural economic and social fabric. The same can be said about the continued policies that crush the income and purchasing power of the general population. Both kinds of policies must be changed.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to welcome two proposals in particular, namely those under amendments 73 and 75, which I consider extremely important. The first amendment concerns the establishment of a new term, that of ‘mountain product’, to describe products containing raw materials from mountain areas. The second amendment refers to the possibility of establishing a new local farming and direct sales labelling scheme to assist producers in marketing their produce locally. The introduction of this label depends on a study to be carried out by the Commission, which I hope will be carried out soon.

I believe that the two new terms could bring important benefits for producers, enabling them to find market niches more easily and compete against large producers. They will also benefit consumers who want to buy food produced in their region, through the efforts of farmers located near the cities they live in. Along with the future support measures provided for by the reform of the European agricultural policy, encouraging the two labels would be an important support for small and medium-sized producers.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur for the way that they have led this process, which is now culminating in the vote on this proposal at first reading. I hope that it will help us make certification schemes simpler and more transparent, adaptable to innovation and less burdensome for producers and consumers. Farmers will certainly continue to focus on quality, but they expect us to create the necessary conditions for them to secure a fair return on their investment, not forgetting that the imposition of such high production standards, in terms of food security, animal welfare and environmental sustainability, is reflected in a higher final product price. Consumers who demand quality from European producers end up buying cheaper and poorer-quality imported products. This is our challenge: to invest in quality, secure a fair income for producers and provide a reasonable option for consumers.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I am delighted with the very clear support that this proposal received during the debate. I hope that Parliament will adopt the agreement that we have reached, through the discussion of certain elements in the context of the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I think that it would be a pity to block the decision on this Quality Package and hold it up on the grounds of points which we can discuss and clarify at the time of the CAP reform.

Several of you pointed to the discussion on quality-related volume control, which did not lead to an agreement between the Council and Parliament.

I am open to pursuing this discussion with you and with the Council in the context of CAP reform, with a view to determining how the monitoring of volumes might have a positive impact on quality, and I am ready to take this aspect into account, if need be.

I think that this legislative proposal, if it is adopted, will create a proper framework for encouraging producers to register their products and for ensuring that the quality of agricultural products in the European Union is more obvious in the marketplace. The advantage of this regulation, to reply to Mr Tabajdi, who unfortunately is no longer here, is that, once this regulation comes into force, all Member States will have to apply the same labelling and quality mentions. This will make it easier for European customers, throughout the Member States, to identify quality products from the same category.

Some of you have spoken about the export potential for quality products. The Union is indeed one of the top exporters of agricultural products and foodstuffs in the world, but, unlike other global partners, such as the United States, which export mainly raw materials, we primarily export added value, with quality products. The regulation that we are about to adopt will make negotiations for the recognition of this system of geographical indication outside the European Union easier for us with our international partners and consequently easier to ensure the legal protection of these products on external markets.

That will allow us not only to promote quality more effectively outside the Union, but also to protect our quality products against counterfeits still to be found on the market. Admittedly these counterfeits are proof that European products are appreciated by consumers outside the Union. However, we now need the legal framework to be able to protect our producers from these counterfeits.

The Commission also plans to present a legislative proposal with a view to promoting agricultural products and foodstuffs on the European market and abroad. It intends to promote actively quality labels and ensure that the European consumer recognises them. We shall invest money to promote the logo that we have designed as part of this regulation, so that European consumers are better able to identify quality products on the market.

As far as local products and products of island farming are concerned, you asked the Commission for reports. I can assure you that the Commission has already started to carry out evaluation work on the quality potential of local products and products from short production and distribution chains. The same work is being carried out for products of mountain farming. It will also be carried out for products of island farming. Finally, at the end of this year, the Commission will present a report, possibly accompanied by legislative proposals for registering these quality labels. I can assure you that this is indeed our intention and that we have already started to work on it.

I would like to thank you again for your support for this legislative proposal. I hope it will lead to a vote in favour tomorrow.

  Iratxe García Pérez, rapporteur. − (ES) Mr President, as has been stated by a number of colleagues during this debate, I regret that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is using this opportunity to table an amendment, which I recommend the other groups to reject.

Even though you may agree with its content, agreements should be respected. After all the work over recent months, I do not think anyone doubts my support and that of many members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) for supply management by producer groups.

Despite the fact it is not represented here, the Council should not think that the aforementioned objective will be forgotten: it will be taken up again in the reform of the common agriculture policy, and more widely than just in relation to quality products.

I want to also make use of the opportunity to express my gratitude for the invaluable help given by my assistant, the technical cooperation of the committee secretariat, and the hard work, good rapport and willingness of all the group shadow rapporteurs we have worked with over this year.

I want to close by reiterating the uniqueness and importance of our geographical indications system. The total turnover of products with designation of origin and protected geographical indication is estimated at EUR 15 billion, around 2.5% of the spend on foodstuffs in the Union. It is a system that should continue to be protected by improving its exposure to the European consumer and its capacity to attract producers and operators so that the market can reward their efforts.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 13 September 2012.

(The sitting was suspended at 20.30 and resumed at 21.00.)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) European agriculture delivers food of great variety, with production methods that are respectful of the environment and of rural communities. The regional diversity of food, the traditional methods of production, and the emphasis on safety and good environmental conditions lead to the fact that the quality of European food is among the highest in the world. We must also demand this from third-country products entering the EU. Farmers and consumers alike need to be made aware of these special characteristics of their home-grown food. This quality-oriented approach could help reward the best-quality products on the domestic, as well as international markets. These labels and quality schemes provide recognition for the high-value characteristics of the products and also for the regional specificities of the products. The current quality schemes are: Protected designation of origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG), Organic Farming and Outermost Regions, all with their respective logos. They bring greater added value for farmers and consumers. I therefore welcome the rapporteur’s initiative, which urges the Commission to make these schemes easier to understand and to extend them to ‘products of island farming’.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. − (CS) Europe is based on products that are cultivated or produced on a long-term and traditional basis. European food producers provide consumers with very varied and mostly very high-quality food. They are creating protected European marks that represent their history and their quality. The current quality regimes include the protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG), products of organic farming and the most remote regions. The food in these systems is marked out by its own logo, enabling rapid recognition by the consumer. The food quality and labelling system helps successful promotion on both the European and global market. It is essential to continue this effort and to continue improving the policy on food and product quality. The Commission’s new proposal sets out the aim of modifying EU legislation in the area of quality, and improving the functioning of national and private certification systems so that they are simpler, more transparent and comprehensible, and more adaptable to innovation and rapid progress. It is also important to reduce the burden they impose on producers and administrators. The report on the quality of agricultural products is a benefit for European legislation, the agricultural market, producers and consumers, and I therefore support its adoption.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European agricultural sector uses safe, clean and environmentally-friendly methods that provide high-quality products that satisfy consumers’ needs. The regional diversity in foodstuffs and traditional production methods that, in some cases, date back centuries, and an emphasis on safety and good environmental conditions contribute to the fact that the quality of European foodstuffs is among the highest in the world.

This quality-focused approach can help when evaluating products of the highest quality on both domestic and international markets. The EU introduced a set of marks and quality systems under its food quality policy that recognise the characteristics of high-value products as well as regional product specifications.

The new legislative proposals on quality submitted by the Commission will improve EU legislation in the area of quality and, equally, in the area of the operation of national and private certification schemes. They aim to make them simpler, more transparent and easier to understand so that they can be adapted to innovation and are less of a burden on producers and administrators. The European quality system will thus be clearer and more comprehensive.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Quality schemes for agricultural products play a special role in strengthening the clear rules of competition, providing consumers with accurate information about the products, ensuring adequate protection of intellectual property and safeguarding the integrity of the internal market. The introduction by the regulation of protection of designations of origin and geographical indications ensures appropriate product designations which maintain the unique and traditional character of the products.

The retention of characteristic quality features of EU agricultural products is important because it applies to product groups that build a competitive advantage for EU agriculture in the world and meet the demand for high quality food. We should therefore make every effort to ensure that regional products (such as the categories of products of mountain and island farming specified in the regulation) are duly registered, labelled and protected against unfair competition. We must ensure that when these products are placed on the market they build a reputation for European food in the world and contribute to maintaining employment in traditional methods of food production.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Every day brings media reports about the poor quality of the foodstuffs being placed on the consumer market. I would therefore like to applaud the work of the rapporteur. The registration and labelling of foodstuffs, statement of product composition, and so on, is only one – albeit significant – measure. I consider it important that consumers be properly informed so that, at a time of crisis, when people look to buy cheaper products, they do not buy low-quality agricultural products. It is similarly important that national inspection authorities conduct thorough checks of the consumer market so that we will never again useindustrial salt on our food, or eat chickens that have been around the world twice and frozen four times, and whose origin we cannot trace. Foodstuffs such as these harm human health, and even kill people. We see examples every year: last year in Germany, and now people are dying in the Czech Republic from methanol. I therefore believe that the adoption of the regulation of Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes will contribute to ensuring a better quality system for foodstuffs.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVARO
Vice-President