Brussels, 29/11/2010 (Agence Europe) - The November communication of the European Commission on the future of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) post-2013 went down well with most of the Agriculture Ministers of the member states. However, the Commission's idea to set in place an upper limit on aid to income met with criticism from several countries (Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania). The United Kingdom is the only country which clearly favoured a future reduction in agricultural expenditure and the phasing out of subsidies to farmers. Latvia, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark also, to a greater or lesser extent, agreed that the Commission's document does not go far enough in terms of making agriculture more market-based. France, Italy, Spain and Ireland, amongst others, warned against the potentially harmful effects for EU farmers of the commercial agreements currently being negotiated (Doha, Mercosur). A more in-depth debate on this document will take place at the next Agriculture Council, on 13 December.
"To be strong, our policy needs to be credible and ambitious, in line with the expectations voiced by our citizens and I personally believe that we must do more to respond to their expectations", said Dacian Ciolos, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, presenting the communication on the reform of the CAP. As regards direct payments, the Commission proposes changes in terms of their redistribution, redefinition and targetting.
According to the Spanish Minister, Rosa Aguilar Rivero, the CAP must be adapted to the new challenges. She argued for a strong CAP with an appropriate budget and for a “green” CAP. “Our agreements with third countries must require reciprocity,” Spain warned.
In the view of Poland, it is vital to carry out an “ambitious reform which does not stop at cosmetic changes”. The budget for the CAP must at least be kept at its current level, it argued. We must also move away from the traditional criteria used in the distribution of aid to a fixed-rate aid, Poland continued. The country also called for the market measures (intervention) to be kept in place.
Bruno Le Maire, the French minister, told the press on Friday that the Commission's proposal “largely picks up” the broad outlines of the Franco-German common position on the future of the CAP. He described the Commission's text as “a good starting point”. Le Maire called for “ambitious” financial resources to be kept in place for the CAP. During the debate, he said that consistency was needed between the CAP and trade policy. “We must be demanding” in the Mercosur and Doha negotiations, he argued. “I welcome the fact that Mr Ciolos” has ruled out the idea of single aid per hectare (an idea defended by some of the newer countries of the EU, such as Poland), Mr Le Maire added. France, however, agrees to “re-balance direct aid” and to “abandon historic references”. France is satisfied that the Commission has made it clear that “regulation of the market is necessary”. But “we are not square on the rules”, said Mr Le Maire, who called for more to be done on the transparency of the markets, on the instruments to respond to crises and on reinforcing the negotiating power of the farmers. As regards the greening of the CAP, France is “very open” to this idea, as long as this is done “in close cooperation with the farmers” and in such a way as not to create too much red tape.
“Whatever happens, the new allocation key for the aid must not be based on the size of the agricultural surfaces,” the Italian minister, Giancarlo Galan, warned. He added that coupled aid (which keeps in place a link with the volumes produced) should continue to be paid to certain sectors on a transitional basis. On Mercosur, there is an enormous risk of an excessive opening-up of the meat sector market, said Mr Galan.
Sweden was in favour of the Commission's ideas on making the greening of the CAP. There is still much to be done to match production to demand, said Eskil Erlandsson, the Swedish minister. The idea of an upper limit on aid is “unacceptable”, said the Czech Republic. Portugal took position in favour of a second pillar of the CAP (rural development) which is “strong” and called for “careful action on the end of milk quotas in 2015”. Germany reiterated that it wants the European budget not to exceed 1% of GDP and it must be avoided that certain countries pay too much, including in agricultural expenditure. Amongst other things, Berlin called for the support to the least-favoured regions to come under first-pillar aid (direct aid and market expenditure). Germany agrees that environmental objectives should be taken into account, but without making the system more bureaucratic. In the view of Finland, aid to the least-favoured areas must be “consolidated". Most of the newer countries of the EU called for a fairer system for the distribution of aid to be put in place, abandoning the criterion of historic references.
For the United Kingdom, the Commission's document could have been “more ambitious”. The European budget must be reduced, and this includes the agriculture budget. We must move towards the end of direct payments, and the second pillar must “carve out the lion's share of the financial resources”.
Ireland called for a continuing “powerful” CAP, direct payments and market measures. (L.C./transl.fl)