Brussels, 23/06/2011 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament (EP) called, on Thursday 23 June, for ambitious reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) for the period after 2014, with, in particular, a “greening” of some direct aid, fairer allocation of aid among countries and farmers and the introduction of a system of degression of aid (in relation with employment and the environment). In adopting the report by Albert Dess (EPP, Germany), which assesses in detail the Commission communication on the CAP to 2020, the EP also calls for instruments to cope with price volatility and to better manage crises. Apart from three amendments, the plenary session went with the position agreed in the EP agriculture committee (see EUROPE 10387). The Commission will bring forward the legislative package on the reform of the CAP in October this year.
The EP wants the continuation of a “strong and sustainable” CAP with a budget that is commensurate with the ambitious objectives to be pursued to meet the new challenges. It resolutely rejects any moves that may lead to a renationalisation of the CAP.
MEPs call for the EU agriculture budget in the next financing period to be maintained “at least at the same level as the 2013 agricultural budget”.
Quality. MEPs stress that the development of food quality policy, including in terms of geographical indication (PDO/PGI/TSG), must be a priority aspect of the CAP and be deepened and strengthened so that the EU can maintain its leadership position in this area. For these high-quality products, “the use of original management, protection and promotion instruments should be allowed”.
Fairer allocation of aid. The EP calls for “a fair distribution of CAP funding” for the first and second pillars both among member states and among farmers within a member state. It takes the view that this “will entail the gradual replacement, following a transitional period, of the system based on outdated historical reference values with support payments which are fair and thus allocated more effectively among countries, among different agriculture sectors and farmers”. It proposes that each member state should receive “a minimum percentage of the EU average direct payments” and that a ceiling should be set. It recommends, too, the earliest possible implementation with a limited transitional period.
In addition, the EP: - rejects a uniform flat-rate direct payment for the whole of the EU which would not reflect European diversity; - considers that member states (only some of the newer member states) which currently apply the simplified Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) should switch, after a limited transitional period, to the single farm payment system with entitlements; - is in favour of establishing a specific, simplified aid scheme for small farmers.
Maintenance of some coupled aid. The EP calls for member states to “have the option of allowing part of the direct payments to remain wholly or partially coupled within WTO limits in order to finance measures to mitigate the impact of decoupling in specific areas and sectors that are economically, environmentally and socially sensitive”.
Capping of aid. The EP “takes note” of the Commission's proposal to introduce an upper ceiling for direct payments and “welcomes this attempt to address the issue of the CAP's legitimacy and public acceptance”. The Council is generally against capping and the Commission for it. The EP asks the Commission to consider the introduction of similar mechanisms that contribute to these, such as a system of degressivity of direct payments in the light of the size of agricultural holdings that takes into account the objective criteria of employment and sustainable practices
The Commission is asked to submit practical proposals “for helping the livestock farming sectors to cope with the rising prices of inputs” (grassland systems and protein crops in arable rotation) to lessen dependence on protein crop imports and could have a favourable impact on the cost of animal feed. The EP also says that direct payments should be reserved exclusively for active farmers.
With its adoption of an S&D Group amendment, the EP advocates “the provision of specific aid in the first pillar to compensate for natural handicaps in order to maintain agricultural activity in mountain regions, environmentally sensitive regions, regions within the Natura-2000 network and the outermost regions”. This aid will supplement and complement second-pillar aid granted to less-favoured areas.
Greening of aid. The EP believes that natural resource protection should be “more closely linked to the granting of direct payments and calls, therefore, for the introduction, through a greening component, of an EU-wide incentivisation scheme with the objective of ensuring farm sustainability and long-term food security through effective management of scarce resources (water, energy, soil) while reducing production costs in the long term by reducing input use”. It takes the view that further greening should be pursued across member states by means of a priority catalogue of area-based and/or farm-level measures that are 100% EU-financed. It considers that any recipient of these particular payments must implement a certain number of greening measures, for example: - support for low carbon emissions and measures to limit or capture greenhouse gas emissions; - support for low energy consumption and energy efficiency; - buffer strips, field margins, presence of hedges, etc; - permanent pastures; - crop rotation and crop diversity.
The EP believes that the agriculture sector could use 40% renewable fuels by 2020 and be fossil-free by 2030. In addition, it calls for the new CAP to promote the conservation of genetic diversity, comply with Directive 98/58/EC on animal welfare and “abstain from funding the production of food from cloned animals and their offspring or descendants”.
Cross-compliance. The EP rejects the introduction of burdensome and unclear requirements derived from the Water Framework Directive into the cross-compliance system until the state of play of implementation of the directive in all member states has been clarified.
Market instruments, safety net and risk management. The EP emphasises that the CAP should incorporate a number of flexible and effective market instruments which act as a safety net, fixed at appropriate levels and available in the event of serious market disruption. It considers that, given increased market volatility, market instruments need to be reviewed to enhance their efficiency and flexibility. Parliament takes the view that these instruments should include specific supply-management instruments which, if employed fairly and on a non-discriminatory basis, can provide effective market management and prevent crises relating to overproduction, at zero cost to the Union budget.
The EP calls for a multi-tiered safety net extended to cover all sectors, comprising a combination of tools such as public and private storage, public intervention, market disruption instruments and an emergency clause. Where market disruptions are of limited duration, it calls for private storage and public intervention to be permitted for specific sectors. MEPs call, too, for a market disruption instrument and an emergency clause to be established for all sectors in common, making it possible for the Commission, under certain circumstances, in the event of crises to take action over a limited period of up to one year (the EP says that a special reserve budget line which could be swiftly activated should be made available in future EU budgets to provide a rapid reaction tool in the event of severe crises in the agricultural markets).
Parliament considers that, in view of the anticipated environmental, climate and epidemiological challenges and in view of the considerable price fluctuations on agricultural markets, additional, more effective, risk prevention measures accessible to all farmers in the various member states are of vital importance, at Union, member state and individual farm level, to protect incomes.
Furthermore, MEPs consider that private-sector insurance schemes and multi-hazard insurance schemes (such as climate insurance, insurance against income loss), futures contracts and mutual funds, partly financed by public funds, “could be developed and promoted as options in the member states in view of increasing risks”. They particularly recommend joint action by farmers to form consortia and cooperatives.
Wine, sugar, citrus fruits and olive oil. With its adoption of an amendment lodged by the S&D Group, the EP insists on the need to assess the specific situation on the milk and milk products sector before March 2015 “so as to ensure the smooth functioning and stability of the milk market”. In adopting a further amendment from the EPP Group, the EP underlined the key role of milk production for European agriculture and the survival and preservation of rural areas, including milk-producing grassland regions and regions and naturally disadvantaged regions in the EU. The Commission is called on to monitor and ensure the sustainable development of the milk market through the use of appropriate instruments with regard to milk and milk products after 2015 (when milk quotas are to be abolished). The EP also calls for fairer distribution of revenue along the whole food production chain (from the farm to the retail outlet).
The EP advocates that the 2006 sugar market regime be extended at least to 2020 in its existing form and calls for suitable measures to safeguard sugar production in Europe and to allow the EU sugar sector to improve its competitiveness within a stable framework.
MEPs believe that the Commission should consider proposing that planting rights in the wine sector be maintained beyond 2015 and should take account of this in its assessment report, to be submitted in 2012, on the 2008 reform of the wine CMO
They consider that management systems should be reinforced in fruit and vegetables (citrus and all the products concerned), wine and olive oil, and that a more efficient crisis fund in fruit and vegetables, better crisis management in the wine sector and an updated private storage system for olive oil are needed.
International trade. The EP calls for the EU to ensure consistency between the CAP and its development and trade policies. It asks the Commission to provide a detailed impact assessment of all ongoing trade negotiations, in particular the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, “which should not negatively affect the developing countries and hinder the effectiveness of the CAP towards 2020”. The Commission is also requested to examine what role the concentration of international trade in cereals has played in the growth of price fluctuations.
G20. The EP calls for global-level solutions to be formulated to tackle speculation in agricultural commodities and extreme price volatility. It supports the proposal by the French Presidency of the G20 that the group should agree measures to combat the increasing volatility in the prices of agricultural raw materials and advocates a worldwide notification and coordinated action system for agricultural stocks intended to provide food security. Consideration should be given, it says, to maintaining stocks of vital agricultural commodities. It argues that storage capacities must be increased and market monitoring and surveillance instruments developed.
The European Parliament, lastly, calls for the retention of the scheme to provide support for the poorest members of society. (L.C./transl.rt)