Brussels, 12/01/2011 (Agence Europe) - Latvia, at present the member state with the lowest level of aid from the common agricultural policy (CAP), has proposed capping the level of payments under the first pillar of the CAP (market expenditure and direct aid). According to the Latvian proposal, this aid system should be variable and based on “objective and equitable” criteria, with the minimum set at €200 per hectare and the maximum at €300 per hectare.
“We are not asking for a flat rate payment. We are proposing that there should be a minimum payment and a maximum payment. The minimum level should be brought up and the maximum one should be brought down,” Imants Liegis told EUROPE. Liegis and Andris Berzins, who respectively chair the Latvian Parliament's European affairs and agriculture committees, jointly led the Latvian delegation in Brussels, on Monday 10 and Tuesday 11 January. The level of aid should be determined by criteria based on: - the area of land used for agriculture; - GDP per capita; - and the costs of maintaining agricultural land. It will be for the European Commission to evaluate, during negotiations on reform of the CAP after 2013, the positions of the different member states. But according to Latvia, it is highly likely that the Commission proposals will not include a single rate for aid. There is an “acceptance” that Latvian farmers should receive more, Liegis said. Where exactly levels are set will depend to a great degree on the outcome of budget negotiations but it has been accepted, Latvia says, that CAP reform should result in a fairer distribution system. The current system, “based on historic production levels”, leads to considerable “discrepancies” and causes market distortion, which conspire to bring about a “feeling of discrimination” in Latvia. “Our farmers get, for example, €96 per hectare” while in more heavily subsidised member states, such as Greece, “they get something like €560”. Latvia is also calling for improvement in the competitiveness and effectiveness of the CAP's second pillar (rural development). The criteria for the distribution of rural development funding should better reflect the current situation and take account of the area of agricultural land in use, income per agricultural employee and the number of small farms. “We understand that it is a challenge to get an agreed definition of what is a small farmer and what is an active farmer,” Liegis said. At any rate, he went on, it should not be the case that pension funds or banks invest in the purchase of land and then receive CAP payments. “That is not what the CAP is about.” He added: “We're talking about part-time agriculture. For us, part-time agriculture could well be a pensioner who lives in the country, getting €100 pension per month and obviously doing a bit of agricultural work to subsist, really”. The CAP budget should not be reduced in the next financial perspectives (2014-2020), he argued. However, it is important, Latvia says, to make sure that, in the budget negotiations, CAP reform is separate from discussion on cohesion policy. “We would be against the reduction of available structural funds” within the budget discussions, Liegis said on behalf of Latvia. (A.By./transl.rt)