Brussels, 13/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - The members of the European Parliament (EP) agriculture committee were critical, on Wednesday 12 October, of the measures to green agricultural aid, the requirement to leave 7% of land fallow, the continued injustice in the distribution of payments and the amount of red tape involved in the reform proposal from the European Commission (see EUROPE 10472).
Committee chairman Paolo De Castro said that the two compatible issues of increasing production and decreasing pollution had to be tackled at the same time. However, environmental sustainability cannot exist without first having ensured the economic sustainability of farms and, in this regard, the risks are now much more common and extensive than in the past, he said. “We are facing a reform of great importance that will take us into a new era in which volatility will become a systematic phenomenon and farmers will need new tools to manage a new and difficult situation”, he stated, noting that, for the first time, common agricultural policy (CAP) reform falls within the co-decision procedure, which gives the EP “a huge responsibility”. “We have over a year and a half to make sure that these proposals provide appropriate responses to all the challenges”, De Castro said.
Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D, Portugal), rapporteur on the direct support section of CAP reform, suggested that the package of proposals provided a “decent base from which to work”. He felt, however, that the budgetary proposal accompanying the package was inadequate. “We will have to fight to make sure account is taken of the EP position”, he stated. The overall budget for farm subsidies has been slashed by almost 8% from what was proposed by the Parliament. The Commission is too timorous in its proposal with regard to redistribution of aid. It is proposing a mechanism to correct inequalities, but it is much too slow, he argued. It will take several decades for convergence to be reached. “The convergence process will have to be improved and the adaptation period will have to be shorter than under the Commission proposal”, Capoulas Santos said. He raised another issue: how to define the eligible surface area for each country. It is on this basis that direct aid to farmers will be calculated, yet a great deal of uncertainty continues to surround it. A further problem is how to define active farmers. Aid must be granted to those who really are farmers, said Capoulas Santos.
He was unhappy, too, that there was to be no investment in new irrigated areas. The Commission proposals on market regulation are inadequate, in his view. Among the positive points in the package, he mentioned aid for small farmers, capping and degressivity of aid, and enhancing the role of professional organisations.
Michel Dantin (EPP, France), rapporteur on the reform of the common organisation of markets, said that “the college of commissioners have eroded the good will” of Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos. “I see that farmers have the opportunity to become organised, but for what? Not very much, unfortunately, under the proposal”¸ he regretted. He said that strengthening producers and inter-branch organisations, which may marginally depart from general competition rules, is a critical point in the reform, giving producers greater strength when dealing with buyers and allowing them a fairer share of the added value. Ideas have been produced on crisis management, but, he opined, the instruments proposed are still “lacking responsiveness”.
Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy) rapporteur on financing management and monitoring, said that “this is the beginning of an important period for the European Parliament because, for the first time, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, it is co-deciding on the future of agricultural policy”. At first sight, he stated, it would not appear that all the EP has proposed on the financial side has been taken into account in the Commission's proposal. This would seem to have much to do with the past, and little to do with innovation, he suggested. The EP will have to work hard to simplify and adapt arrangements to the new institutional framework, he said in conclusion.
“This proposal falls far short”, in the view of Stéphane Le Foll (S&D, France). He added that, “currently, we have no clear idea of how much of the budget will be allocated to agriculture”. He said he agreed with some points in the proposal (ending historic references, convergence of aid levels per hectare, aid for small farms, and degressivity/capping aid in relation to number of jobs). “We can be much more critical on the section on the greening of aid. The Commission has brought forward a plan with no ambition which will not provide any incentive for European agriculture to change production models”, Le Foll argued. He regretted that the Commission had failed to bring forward sufficient
proposals to regulate agricultural markets in a context of high price volatility. He welcomed the plan to keep some coupled aid (that is, aid which retains a link to the amount of production). Catherine Trautmann (S&D, France) slammed macro-economic conditionality in European aid: “If their state runs up an excessive deficit, the regions will have rural development funding withdrawn. This unfair measure imposed by Sarkozy and Merkel also puts rural society under threat.”
German MEP Albert Dess, speaking on behalf of this group, the EPP, was somewhat critical: 30% for the greening of the CAP, 7% of land lying fallow, 2% of total budget allocations for young farmers - “all that will weigh heavy on the budget. This is not an ideal distribution of credits and it will not make agriculture more competitive”, he said. In some areas, there will be more red tape, he regretted, but he agreed with the emphasis laid by the Commission on innovation. Agriculture's power to innovate deserves to be boosted, he stated.
George Lyon (ALDE, UK) said that “on the key test of whether the proposals will incentivise and develop a more sustainable, more competitive, more carbon efficient agriculture, the whole package falls dreadfully short”. The greening of the direct payments, as proposed by the Commission was “nothing more than a green-wash” and the measures ran a real risk of making European farmers less competitive, he said. “To quote just one concrete example, it is complete nonsense to require 7% of each farm's land to be set aside for ecological purposes at a time of food and energy scarcity”, he stated. He welcomed the proposals on targeting aid on active farmers, helping young farmers and providing aid for farmers in areas of natural constraints. He also hailed the proposed further alignment of the CAP with the EU 2020 strategy under rural development, in particular stressing research and innovation. “There will be political concern and details to work out on the redistribution of payments between member states and between farmers, most notably the transition from historic payments to area-based systems.” He concluded by saying: “Overall, the package needs to be greatly improved, if it is to win the support of the Parliament”.
In the view of James Nicholson (ECR, UK), the proposal “is not a reform but a regression”. “Farmers just want to do what they do best: produce food. These proposals put yet more obstacles in their way”, he said. The greening measures will put an excessive burden on farmers and will make it harder for them to produce food, he suggested. In addition, he found it incredible that the EU wants to pay farmers to keep land fallow. “I thought we had seen the end of this ridiculous idea”, he said. Nicholson opposed measures capping aid which could prove to be “a disaster” for some member states.
“You have taken measures that are on the right track, but they do not go far enough”, stated Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany). He felt that the capping measures proposed should be approved by the EP. He felt that a number of member states, mainly the new countries, would not be happy with the redistribution of funding. “I do not want to give European money to insurance groups”, he commented with regard to proposed crisis management measures. According to José Bové (Greens/EFA, France), the European Commission “has missed a real opportunity to radically reform the CAP and, in so doing, address the challenges facing Europe”. He said that the measures put forward by the Commission do not guarantee the productive potential of European agriculture over the long term. “By encouraging effective crop rotation, Europe could achieve the triple objective of strengthening its food independence, reducing the economic dependence of farmers on the agro-chemical sector, and producing a positive impact on air and water quality and on global warming - all without incurring any further expense for the taxpayer. The 'crop diversification' proposal is anecdotal.” The Commission, Bové said, had “thrown in the towel when faced with the pressure from fertiliser and pesticide companies. The greening of the CAP is nothing more than a dab with a paint brush”. Further, in his view, the levels proposed for aid capping and degressivity “are so high that they will do nothing to resolve existing injustices between member states and between farmers”. Finally, by setting eligible land area on 1 January 2014 as the reference, the Commission “has opened a two-year hunting season for eligible land, for the ploughing up of permanent grasslands and the setting up of societal structures to divert aid capping and degressivity criteria”.
Alfred Rubiks (GUE/NGL, Latvia) was “concerned” by the proposal, particularly with regard to the injustice which will continue to exist on the allocation of aid and the increase in the administrative load on farmers. He called for Baltic state farmers to receive at least 90% of average EU direct
payments by 2020, rather than the 52% in the proposal.
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD, Italy) raised the issue of unfair competition on the part of third countries and warned of the consequences of the EU-Morocco bilateral agreement.
In response to MEPs' comments, Commissioner Ciolos argued that the proposals on greening were measures that were “easy to check”. With regard to the set-aside land, he made it clear that, within this 7% of land, there could be not just fallow land but also forms of vegetation that kept the ground fertile even if not cultivated. These forms of vegetation would, in future, be eligible for aid. There were also “forested strips” to prevent erosion of the earth, which will be eligible for aid.
He said he was well aware of the problem of the Baltic states on the convergence of aid. He admitted that the proposal was “not ambitious enough compared with the objectives I initially set”. However, he added, account had to be taken of political realities. This was the first time CAP reform and its budget had been negotiated simultaneously, and the reform of the CAP is related to other components of the budget, he pointed out. Market measures must “provide a genuine safety net, and that is what we have proposed”. The Commission will present reports in 2012 and 2013 on the wine sector and the fruit and vegetable sector. “I believe that, in future, producer organisations will be a key part of all market and crisis management measures. These producer organisations have to be strengthened and given the means to take real action”, he stated. (LC/transl.rt)