Brussels, 19/11/2010 (Agence Europe) - “There is no more relevant instrument than the common agricultural policy (CAP), a strong CAP, to ensure that there are farmers across all our lands, and to make out agriculture competitive both economically and environmentally,” Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Cioloº told the European Parliament (EP) agriculture committee on Thursday 18 November as he presented the communication on the reform of the CAP (see EUROPE 10259). Most MEPs approved the general philosophy of the Commission document, particularly with regard to a greener CAP and fairer direct aid. Some, however, feared the aid system would be too complex and bureaucratic or complained that the Commission had proposed nothing to ease price volatility. In addition, many MEPs were unhappy about the uncertainty surrounding future funding for the CAP.
Albert Dess (EPP, Germany) rapporteur on the CAP post-2013, criticised the Commission document as being too broad and reminded everyone that “the devil is in the detail”. “I am delighted that you are retaining the CAP's twin pillar system,” Dess added. “My impression is that we are going to have not less red tape but more,” he regretted, speaking about the various aid systems and new environmental rules. He also complained that the communication did not contain a statement on the funding of the new CAP. “In April or May, the Parliamentary agriculture committee will have to vote on the draft report on this reform. The Commission proposal will, therefore, have to be much more concrete so that the effects of these measures can be assessed in member states,” he said (Ed.: at a press conference). How much will be made available for the CAP will also have to be known, Dess stated.
Michel Dantin and Christophe Béchu (EPP, France) said: “The paper put on the table by the Commission provides a satisfactory basis for discussion. It recognises the absolute need for public action and support for the agricultural sector, so that it can respond to society's wishes, for example in terms of the environment and health”. They were aware, however, that putting these guidelines into practice would “be dependent on the funding allocated to the CAP, in other words, on budget negotiation for the period 2014-2020, and the amendment of European competition law and the rules on the functioning of the internal market”.
Luis Capoulas Santos (S&D, Portugal) said he was pleased to see that many proposals made by European Socialists “are to be found among the Commission's proposals”, including in relation to improving environmental protection, capping aid, more fairness in allocation of aid and the removal of historic references. He regretted that employment was not one of the criteria for distribution of aid and that the document “does not take account” of the ending of milk quotas in 2015. “These Commission proposals don't go far enough on regulation of agricultural markets. No new, definite proposals to deal with the current problems of massive price volatility have been tabled,” railed Stéphane Le Foll (S&D, France).
George Lyon, speaking for the ALDE Group, regretted that the document was “quite general”. He welcomed the intended end of historic references. “Caution must be shown on the greening of some CAP aid,” he suggested, to avoid any effect on the competitiveness of European agriculture. He added that the recent failure on the part of the institutions to reach agreement on the 2001 budget could make it “difficult to process any CAP legislation”.
The Commission document could very well become famed more for what it does not say than for what it does, according to James Nicholson (ECR, UK). He said the idea of a cap on aid for large farms was interesting, “but what level of cap are you considering?” He was critical that the Commission seemed to want to put in place new instruments and new requirements to protect the environment. But these could result in more “red tape and frustration” for farmers. The CAP is a policy for farmers, to supply food, it is not a social or environmental policy, he stated.
“We support you in your desire for reform,” said Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany), speaking of a “greener, fairer CAP”. He wished the commissioner good fortune and strength in his attempts to introduce a cap on aid. Imbalances in direct aid have to be corrected, he said, expressing the view that SMEs are currently at a disadvantage. He spoke of the balance between agriculture and trade: “Agriculture has to play the more important role,” he opined. José Bové (Greens/EFA, France) raised a point that had to be cleared up - who controls production. Without being able to control the scale of production, it will be difficult to manage supply and demand, he pointed out.
Partick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL, France) welcomed some parts of “shift” proposed by the Commission (the notion of working farmers in the allocation of aid, capping aid, incentive aid for the environment). “Are we sure that the budget will be able to be kept at its present level? This is not at all clear,” he stressed. He advocated “a protective mechanism for our agriculture”.
The CAP post-2013 should have “at least the same budget as in previous years,” stated Lorenzo Fontana (EFD, Italy). He said that the CAP's new green sections should only be introduced if agriculture funding remained substantial.
In response to questions, Commissioner Cioloº said there was “no contradiction between simplification and greening”. He said his goal was to bring in green facets while simplifying the rules on aid conditionality (payment of aid on condition that a number of criteria, including environmental, are met). A transition period “as long as is necessary” is needed to be able to redistribute aid more fairly, the commissioner said. “The Commission is having to deal with a situation where it has to manage a limited budget for the traditional major Community policies and also fund new measures and policies called for by the member states and the EP,” he noted. A balance will have to be found between “our traditional and new policies and the resources given to the Commission in terms of budget,” he said, admitting that he favoured a “substantial” budget for the CAP. He said he hoped that the Commission would not have to “sacrifice” traditional policies in order to be able to fund others. (L.C./transl.rt)