Brussels, 01/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - A torrent of amendments will pour down on the draft report by Albert Dess (EPP, Germany) on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013. On Monday 28 February, the Dess draft report was roundly criticised in the European Parliament (EP) agriculture committee, particularly on direct aid in the future and the allocation of credits between the first pillar of the CAP (direct aid and market spending) and the second (rural development). MEPs will have until 14 March to lodge their amendments. The vote on the draft report will be held in the agriculture committee on 2 May and then in the plenary session in June.
Rapporteur Dess argued for a “fairer and simpler CAP”. He added that, after 2013, the EU will need to have a responsible CAP with solid finances (see EUROPE 10324). He set out what was needed: - smoothing out the direct aid differences that exist between member states; - simplifying rural development policy (second pillar of the CAP); - providing specific aid for young farmers and defining what exactly is meant by “small farms” (before determining their needs); - retaining current market instruments so they can be used in times of crisis. “I am ready to compromise” he said in conclusion.
On behalf of the S&D Group, Luis Capoulas Santos (Portugal) reproached Dess for being “somewhat imprecise” on the areas where the EP really has to make its presence felt. In his report, Dess suggests a fairer sharing out of the monies for direct aid across the EU. The way he proposes to do this came in for criticism from the S&D Group, however. Dess proposes that each member state should be able to retain a minimum envelope equivalent to two thirds of the average paid out in direct aid at EU level. Capoulas Santos was especially critical of the two sections of the report which speak about: - an optional increase in national second pillar funding for measures that were of particular importance to the member states; - the transfer of funding between the first and second pillars for the greening of CAP aid. The S&D Group is also unhappy that the rapporteur did not propose any definition of “working farmer”, when the EU is trying to target payments more on this category, and also that he was contradictory on (environmental, climate and epidemic) risk management instruments. The draft report speaks of the usefulness of “additional risk prevention measures” while coming out against EU-level insurance systems. The S&D Group is also calling for labour to be included as a criterion for the allocation of payments to farmers. “We would welcome compromise amendments if they strengthen the EP position”, said Capoulas Santos.
Against the capping of aid. There are “several areas” in which the report pleases the ALDE Group, said George Lyon (UK), mentioning, for example, the need for simplification, maintaining a strong CAP budget after 2013 and the call for fairer allocation of aid among countries. Lyon congratulated the rapporteur in his stance against the capping of aid. The draft report rejects any measure which discriminates between the different kinds of farming.
Retention of certain production premiums. Among the criticisms of the draft report levelled by Lyon was its muddled stance on direct payments. The report suggests rolling out decoupling (ending the link between the premium and production) to the premiums for suckler cows and for sheep, but acknowledges that some sectors in some regions (such as mountainous regions) which have no alternative to stock farming could suffer quite serious economic and environmental consequences. The rapporteur agrees, therefore, that carefully managed production premiums might be something to be considered, including for a limited period after 2013.
Lyon was also critical of the lack of ambition of the rapporteur's ideas on sharing out aid more fairly, pointing out that, with the system suggested, only three of the new member states would see any benefit. The model proposed by Dess for the greening of some aid (transfer from the first to the second pillar of the CAP and fines for contravention) was deemed too complicated.
James Nicholson (ECR, UK) thanked the rapporteur for finding a few novelties, compared with previous reports on the CAP. He called for the introduction of some flexibility in the direct payments system, so long as the regime remained fair. He was concerned at references in the report to co-funding, which brings with it a risk of “renationalisation of agricultural spending”. He felt it was risky to rush into any definition of what constitutes a “working farmer”. Caution had also to be shown on systems such as multi-risk insurance, he said. He also backed maintaining a “safety net” in case of extreme market conditions.
On behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, Martin Häusling (Germany) criticised Dess in particular for questioning the effectiveness of the first pillar of the CAP by recommending the transfer of credits from the first to the second pillar. He also regretted that the idea of capping aid for large farms had not found a place in the draft report. He felt it should be possible to find a compromise on a system that allows the greening of the CAP without increasing bureaucracy. Häusling would have liked to have seen more measures to help young farmers. (L.C./transl.rt)