Brussels, 26/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament (EP) agriculture committee reached agreement on Wednesday 25 May on relatively ambitious reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) for the period beginning 2014, through, for example, greening of direct aid, fairer sharing of aid among countries and farmers, and the introduction of a system of aid reduction (dependent on employment and the environment). The need for effective regulatory instruments to be able to deal with price volatility was highlighted by MEPs. Several compromise amendments were adopted by the committee, reworking the draft report by Albert Dess (EPP, Germany). The Dess report, which was passed by 40 votes to one, with four abstentions, in the agricultural committee, will be debated and approved by the EP at the Brussels session on 22-23 June. The Commission will bring forward legislative proposals in the autumn.
“We have put down an important marker. We have managed to conclude a compromise with the various political groups that sends a signal to the European Commission”, commented rapporteur Dess at the press conference. He said that negotiations had been difficult on reducing aid and greening aid, and stated that the agriculture committee wants agriculture to be “still more environmentally friendly”.
Committee chairman Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy) said: “Today's vote is the outcome of a lengthy work process that, as usual, involved all the political groups and has now set out the main principles to govern the new CAP”, that is to say, objective criteria for payments including employment, a new “green” element, more flexibility for member states and a dedicated budget line in the event of market crises.
A budget fit for the task. The agriculture committee came out in favour of retaining the twin-pillar structure of the CAP (the first containing direct aid and market spending and the second being rural development policy) with a budget that matches the level of ambition of the CAP - any renationalisation of the CAP was rejected by MEPs. In future (from 2014), the CAP budget must be kept at least at the same level as that of 2013, MEPs said.
Fairer distribution of aid. The committee wants aid to be more fairly distributed among member states and among different categories of farmer. It proposes the gradual replacement of historical support criteria, which have led to disparities, with new, objective criteria. In future, say MEPs, each EU country should receive a minimum percentage of EU average payments.
Reduction of aid. The committee took note of the Commission's proposal that an upper ceiling for direct payments be introduced to address the issue of the legitimacy of the CAP and public acceptance. MEPs asked the Commission to consider the introduction of other similar mechanisms to achieve these ends, such as a system of reducing direct aid according to the size of the farm, taking account of the objective criteria of employment and sustainable practices.
To avoid any misuse of private funds, MEPs proposed that direct payments should be reserved for “active farmers”, i.e. those who use land for production. They pressed the Commission to provide a clear definition of an “active farmer”, which, they said, should certainly exclude cases where the administrative costs of making a payment are higher than the payment itself.
Greening of the CAP. This is a European Commission priority which MEPs have taken as their own. The committee voted for the introduction, through a green component in direct aid, of an EU-wide incentivisation system, 100% financed by the EU, to support farmers who use sustainable production methods and carefully manage resources (water, soil and energy). Direct payments to farmers should be more directly linked to “greening measures” (low carbon emissions, capture of GHG emissions, low energy consumption), MEPs argued.
Speculation, crisis management and farmers' bargaining power. Tackling speculation in agricultural commodities is crucial to reduce extreme price volatility and guarantee greater stability for farmers inside and outside the EU. The committee proposed a worldwide notification system to defend agricultural stocks intended for food security and it supported French proposals made at the G20 on this matter.
The new CAP should be equipped with supply management tools, at zero cost to the EU budget, to prevent overproduction, according to MEPs. However, if a crisis occurs, whether due to price fluctuations or other factors, special EU budget funding should quickly be made available to ensure a rapid response.
Lastly, MEPs believe new legislation is needed to improve producer organisations' bargaining power in the food supply chain, with greater price transparency and less unfair commercial practices, and to stop the trend of falling incomes for farmers.
Michel Dantin (EPP, France) hailed a massive vote for an agricultural system able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. “We wanted to put agriculture's role as a producer of food at the heart of our message, and to give clear backing to moves, such as increased greening of the CAP, reducing aid according to the size of farms and number of jobs they support, fairer sharing of aid among states and among producers, and also the particular attention afforded small farmers”, he said. “But let us not be deceived: the level of what is being demanded at present and suggested development will necessarily require the agricultural budget to be kept at least at its current level. That is the clear message we have once again sent today”, Dantin added.
The external chapter was not forgotten. The EP agriculture committee restated the importance it attaches to the principle of reciprocity: imports must meet the same environmental, health and social standards as those imposed on European farmers. Regulation of agricultural markets remains a major concern of the EP, “which today chose to give unequivocal support to the initiatives of the French Presidency of the G20 on this crucial, but sensitive, issue”, Dantin said.
Stéphane Le Foll (France), deputy leader of the S&D Group, welcomed the outcome of the voting. “A progressive majority meant that a re-draft of the report by Mr Dess could be proposed: the report adopted proposes putting in place instruments that will set agriculture on the way to more sustainable development, taking account of food safety, environmental (global warming, biodiversity, management of resources such as water and the soil) regional and, particularly, employment objectives. For this, the committee proposed a greening of the aid from the first pillar, contrary to the initial thoughts of rapporteur Dess, in order to give farmers incentives to move progressively to good agricultural practice and to perform well both economically and with regard to the environment.”
Le Foll noted that all the S&D amendments on agricultural markets had been accepted. These related to the need for effective regulation instruments available to all types of production, to be able to deal with price volatility. Two other amendments were adopted, one on managing production volumes and the other on enhancing producers' bargaining power in the production chains. On rural development, the S&D Group succeeded in getting additions to the report (aid for innovation, modernisation, development of quality and direct selling sectors, aid for diversification in green energy, and review of the policy on setting-up young farmers).
George Lyon (ALDE, UK) said he was “glad” that the “timid 'status quo'” initially proposed by the rapporteur had been broadly avoided through the committee vote. The amended report was, he said a big improvement, “in line with the broad direction set out by the ALDE Group last year and in my own report adopted by Parliament in July 2010”. Lyon opined that the text approved by the committee paves the way for ambitious reform of the CAP. “ALDE will continue to argue that driving competiveness through innovation, further greening of the CAP, and fairer distribution through targeted payments will secure a sustainable future for European agriculture”, he stated.
José Bové (Greens/EFA, France) argued that, with this vote, the EP agriculture committee had sent a number of important signals, such as, for example, the desire to “reform aid policy through fairer distribution among countries and among farmers, particularly by reducing the sums awarded in relation to employment and environmental practices”. MEPs had come out in support of the retention of European income subsidies, “but they went a step further and called for prices paid to producers to be higher than production costs”. MEPs repeated their desire to see an effective system put in place to tackle speculation and commodity price volatility, Bové pointed out. Support specifically for small farms has been made a political priority and the EP wants agreements with the countries of the South to be “fairer”, he added. There were good responses to climate change, preservation of cultivated biodiversity, of the soil and of water, Bové said, through the position given to permanent grasslands and to proteins in crop rotations, allowing farmers greater autonomy. (L.C./transl.rt)