Brussels, 23/11/2010 (Agence Europe) - UK and Polish agriculture ministers Jim Paice and Marek Sawicki called on Monday 22 November for funding to be re-allocated, with more going to rural development. “We certainly support a shift in funding from pillar one - the direct payments - towards pillar two,” Paice told press following a meeting with Sawicki in Warsaw. “It is the part of CAP where we can obtain the most change, by encouraging farmers and the food industry to invest in new production systems in modernisation of their business and prepare for those more challenging days ahead,” he argued.
“There are areas on which we agree, notably beefing up pillar two to make the CAP more dynamic, innovative and competitive,” said Sawicki, pointing out that, unlike Britain which wants a cut in EU spending on the CAP, Poland wants CAP funding to remain unchanged after 2013. Poland wants CAP funding to be split equally between the two pillars, while Britain wants pillar one to be phased out. Both countries agree on the need to level out the differences in direct aid paid to farmers from the older and newer members of the EU.
Poland is one of a number of countries which feel that they have been ill-served by the criteria for allocating aid, which are based on historic production levels. Poland and other newer EU member states are calling for flat rate direct payments to be introduced, but this option has been ruled out by France and Germany, and has been criticised by the European Commission.
Several points of the European Commission communication on the reform of the CAP “reflect the joint position of the French and German governments agreed on 14 September, which was welcomed by most states at the informal Council meeting in La Hulpe,” said the French Agriculture Ministry. It warned that France “will oppose any attempt to remove regulation instruments or weaken direct aid, which are essential to the development of Europe's agricultural potential”.
German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner said that the reform proposals formed “a sound basis for discussion”. She welcomed Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Cioloº' stated aim of better integrating environmental protection imperatives, “a path that Germany has long been following,” she said. However, on this particular point, “for the moment, I see more questions than solid answers,” she said. She was sceptical on the Commission's idea of more closely linking direct aid to “green” targets, fearing an explosion of bureaucracy. Capping the subsidies paid to large farms did not go down well with her either. The East of Germany has many large farms, a legacy of the German Democratic Republic's cooperatives.
Farmers' organisations and agricultural cooperatives in the EU which come together under the umbrella of Copa and Cogeca regret that the communication contains no concrete measure seeking to ensure that there is a competitive and dynamic agricultural sector, able to meet the challenges of food security, market volatility and climate change. Instead, the organisations state, the main proposal in the text consists of demanding additional compulsory environmental services from farmers, “greening” the CAP, which “could only be envisaged if there were to be an increase in the current CAP budget”. The result, the agricultural organisations say, will quite simply be yet again deterioration in producers' income and further weakening of their position against imports from third countries and on the global market. Farmers are willing to do more in the way of environmental and other public services as called for by the Commission, the two organisations say, but this must be on a voluntary basis. They add that there must be real incentives for farmers to undertake the additional work and bear the costs.
European Coordination Via Campesina says that “the improvements suggested regarding the distribution of the direct payments are positive, but their range is limited since the 'free-trade' framework and 'competitiveness' on the international markets remain the backbone of the CAP. Farmers will remain with neither fair prices, nor a fair income”. It argues that the Commission is proposing “to adapt to price volatility instead of fighting it - by managing supply and regulating markets”. European Coordination Via Campesina “will support a capping of direct payments, and that care be taken that the level of capping is sufficient to be effective”. It proposes not only linking the ceiling to the number of people working on the farm but binding all direct payments to the number of people working on the farm. “European support must be related to people, not to hectares,” it says. It also supports the proposal for a specific payment for small-scale farms, which, it says, is justified by the positive multifunctional role that they play in the countryside.
While the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) backs the principles set out by the Commission in the document, in particular food security, sustainable development and territorial balance, it believes these principles should be included in the CAP “in order to guarantee a decent income to farmers, including in the disadvantaged areas, particularly in island regions and those subject to particular climatic constraints,” CPMR President Jean-Yves Le Drian said. He added: “We are convinced that a diversified and perennial agriculture is possible across the whole of the European territory. This needs to be a priority for the CAP. If this was not the case, the least productive regions … could see waste land developing within their territories, and agri-food sectors such as the rural communities would find themselves weakened”. The CPMR believes that direct aid should be subject to reform taking on board employment criteria. Le Drian added: “This taking into account must apply not only to very small and very large farms, but to all farms, whatever their size. It is this diversity which generates the richness and vitality of the rural economy in Europe”. The CPMR wants to preserve “effective and proportionate” European market regulation instruments in the first pillar of the CAP and awaits proposals from the Commission on possible new EU risk management tools. The CPMR proposes that each territorial pact concluded between the EU, a member state and a region includes a rural/agricultural/agri-food strand which would consequently become a medium-term reference for all regional stakeholders, Le Drian said.
CEETTAR, which represents agricultural, rural and forestry contractors, welcomes the European Commission's commitment to an ambitious common agricultural policy for the future. It suggests, however, that “the true face that the Commission intends to give to the common agricultural policy depends on the future legislative proposal”. In addition, CEETTAR says that too many uncertainties surround how much will be allocated to agriculture in the EU's new financial perspectives. CEETTAR calls on the Commission to “adapt its future strategy, taking into account the role of agricultural contractors and renew the traditional approach to competitiveness by giving farmers and service providers the same treatment”.
CEJA (European Council of Young Farmers) is pleased that the Commission states that “addressing the specific needs of Young Farmers and new entrants will be a priority”. The communication on the reform also states that the “vitality and potential of many rural areas remain closely linked to the presence of a competitive and dynamic farming sector, attractive to young farmers”. CEJA calls for “targeted policies” in both pillar 1 and pillar II of the CAP “to combat the generational decline in the sector”. CEJA supports the Commission's objectives: - of a strong CAP after 2013; - of greater greening in direct aid (so long as this does not result in more red tape, the young farmers warn); - of aid being better targeted towards active farmers.
The environmental organisations seem reassured by the greening of certain parts of the CAP. WWF welcomes some improvements, such as commitment towards environmental protection being more closely linked to direct payments and the mention of Natura 2000 and High Nature Value systems as deserving specific support. (L.C./transl.rt)