Brussels, 09/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - Member states are far from having reached a position of consensus on the text of the conclusions for reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The draft text was examined for a second and last time on Monday 7 March, by experts from the Special Agricultural Committee (SAC). It has provoked differences on several key aspects, such as the future budget, modalities for the future distribution of direct aid and the “greening” of certain payments and market measures.
Everything suggests that, given the difficulties in being able to satisfy everybody about such a sensitive dossier, European ministers for agriculture will not be able to adopt the Council conclusions (consensus required) but rather, the conclusions from the Presidency, which have less political scope.
Following the discussions on 28 February, the Presidency presented a revised version of the post-2013 CAP draft conclusions (EUROPE 10327). The Presidency only introduced a few changes.
Budget. According to the new text, the CAP must remain a “strong” common policy with appropriate financial resources. Several countries (the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Sweden) consider that the reference to the link between a strong agricultural policy and its funding must be removed. Other member states (France, Ireland, Slovakia and Bulgaria), however, defended a strong policy with an appropriate budget, and would prefer to return to the initial formulation stipulating commensurate financial resources.
On the political objectives, the liberal countries (the United Kingdom at the head of them) questioned the value of long-term direct payments and would like a clear reference to decoupling (removing the link between payment and the volume produced) and direct aid to farmers. Some delegations (United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden) consider that the impact of direct payments is generally negative.
Distribution support. The draft conclusions underline the need to ensure fairer distribution of direct aid between countries by way of: - a pragmatic approach towards the allocation objective criteria; - a gradual pace of change that avoids major upsets. Several delegations (France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) consider that the text should explicitly mention that the new distribution of aid involves the firstt (direct aid and market spending) and the second (rural development) pillars of the CAP. Italy considers that changes should not mean any huge redistribution.
Greening of aid. Denmark, Greece, France and the Netherlands consider that greening should involve the two CAP pillars. Italy has expressed concern about additional costs to farmers caused by these greening measures.
Market measures. The text highlights the fact that current market measures must continue and provide a safety net. Some delegations (United Kingdom, Czech Republic and the Netherlands) would like to get rid of the term “current” when referring to market measures. France and Slovenia would, on the contrary, prefer a more ambitious formulation in the paragraph on market measures.
Food supply chain. The text underlines that what has been done for the milk sector should also be done for other sectors. This was not appreciated by certain liberal countries (the United Kingdom and Sweden). Spain, supported by almost 10 countries (including France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia and Cyprus), would like to add a paragraph on the need for rules on fair play between the EU and non-EU producer countries.
Given the many divergences persisting, the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of Ministers will probably present a new set of draft conclusions before the Agriculture Council on 17 March. Nonetheless, it considers that the current text constitutes a good balance and that any modification could mean certain member states would be unable to support the text on a number of points.
Simplification of the CAP. During the SAC, the Netherlands submitted a note jointly drawn up with Denmark, which presents six major simplification orientations, which ought to guide the European Commission in the elaboration of its legislative proposals. The objective is to have a simpler and less costly CAP for the national authorities and fewer administrative costs for farmers. Twenty-four member states support this initiative. This subject will be discussed at the Agriculture Council on 17 March. According to the Commission, many of these principles form the basis of the current legislative undertaking (cost benefit calculations and proportionality). The conference bringing together bodies responsible for making payments and overseeing coordination, as well as representatives from agriculture, will be organised for 21 March and is expected to look at how measures such as setting a ceiling and payments to small farmers could be simplified. (L.C./transl.fl)