Brussels, 02/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - There is still a lot more work to be done if the Council of EU agriculture ministers is to be able to adopt conclusions on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) on 17 March. At the meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) on Monday 28 February, differences appeared among the member states' experts over a number of major issues in the draft text, issues such as the future budget, allocation of direct aid, capping support for large farms, the greening of agricultural aid and market measures. The SCA will re-work the text at its next meeting on 7 March before leaving it to ministers for approval. If consensus is reached, then these will be Council conclusions. Otherwise, the Commission, which is preparing legislative proposals, will have to content itself with Hungarian Presidency conclusions, which will carry much less political clout.
Council adoption of conclusions on the reform is the final stage in discussion of the European Commission communication of 18 November 2010 on the “CAP towards 2020”. The whole exercise is a very delicate one, with so many differing views on display.
CAP budget. Some countries, such as Belgium, Ireland and Poland, have flagged up the importance of reference being made to the CAP having a sufficiently large budget (rather than “commensurate” as the draft text states) after 2013. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden and the Czech Republic, insist that nothing should be done that could prejudice the negotiations that will take place on the next multi-annual financial framework.
Objectives of direct aid. While some countries, like Belgium, would like price volatility to be mentioned as a factor in income variability, a number of others, such as Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom, feel that principles must be restricted to the objectives set by the treaties.
Allocation of aid. Most delegations, including those of Germany, France, Ireland, Belgium the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, are insistent that fairer redistribution should not just refer to the first pillar (direct aid and market spending) but across the board, and, so, also to the second pillar (rural development). Several of the newer member states - Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic States and Bulgaria - and some older states - Spain and Luxembourg - have called for historical references to be done away with and for objective criteria to be used in allocating direct aid. Others, such as Germany, Italy and Ireland, would like to see a more pragmatic approach with no major disruption. The transitional period (in moving to new allocation) is a source of division between those countries which, like Belgium, Ireland and Italy, want as long a transition period as possible and those, like the Czech Republic and Latvia, which would like it to be as short as possible. Romania, backed by Bulgaria, Estonia and the United Kingdom, has proposed that the text should include a reference to the need to bring an end to the two-speed system.
Capping of aid. In its communication, the Commission proposes putting an upper limit (a cap) on direct payments to large individual farms so that there can be a better sharing of payments among farmers. Several countries are against this idea, and Germany and the Czech Republic in particular, want the text of the conclusions to make even clearer the Council's opposition to the capping of aid. Other countries, for example, Belgium, Greece and the United Kingdom, which are more open to the idea of capping, would like an impact assessment on this measure to be able to weigh up the consequences.
Greening of aid. Some delegations have highlighted the need for simple measures in this area, which do not involve too much bureaucracy for farmers. France backs the greening of the first pillar as proposed by the Commission, while others, such as Germany, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, want greening in line with current measures in both pillars. Poland even refutes the need for further greening of aid.
Disadvantaged regions. The Commission proposes to promote the sustainable development of agriculture in areas which face specific natural handicaps by means of additional income support to farmers in these regions, in the form of a payment calculated on agricultural area complementing the aid granted under the second pillar. The draft text underlines that aid for disadvantaged regions from the second pillar has to be maintained. Some countries, such as Estonia, Latvia and Poland, have not ruled out an additional aid scheme under the first pillar, as suggested by the Commission.
Support for young farmers. Several countries, including Belgium and Ireland, believe that the issue of young farmers is sufficiently important for it to have a specific paragraph in the text of the conclusions. Mentioning measures to help young farmers in the section on rural development would not be enough in the view of some countries which are calling for a reference to young farmers in the paragraph relating to the possibilities open to countries to target certain forms of aid on categories such as small farmers and active farmers.
Decoupling of aid. Some countries, like the United Kingdom and Germany, have asked for greater emphasis to be put on the principle of decoupling of aid, while others - such as Italy and Finland - have recommended greater flexibility, allowing some production-related premiums to be retained.
Market measures and risk management. Denmark and Sweden have called for more market orientation, while a group of countries - Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovenia - would like to see a range of flexible instruments to be made available as market measures. France has called for reference to be made to the general disturbance clause.
Trade. Countries like France and Ireland have called for a paragraph specifically on international trade issues and the CAP to be made consistent with EU trade policy.
Improving the operation of the food supply chain. Some countries, namely Denmark and the Netherlands, feel that it is not pertinent to cite the dairy sector as a model for the other agricultural sectors.
Simplification. Some member states would like the conclusions on this point to refer to a document on this issue presented by the Netherlands and signed jointly by 10 member states. (L.C./transl.rt)