Brussels, 14/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - Agricultural organisations and a few EU countries, such as France and Italy, have criticised the 30% level of direct payments for greening, the 7% of land that has to be taken out of production and the new distribution of agricultural aid that feature in the proposal on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
In France, Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire has said that, “as it stands”, the Commission proposal on greening direct payments “does not respond to the objectives” sought. He says it is essential that “wide room for manoeuvre in arrangements” is left nationally to successfully bring about convergence of payments within each member state. The Commission, he says, has “slammed the brakes on a long period of gradually dismantling regulation instruments”.
In Italy, the Commission proposal is seen by the agriculture minister as “generally unsatisfactory”. Saverio Romano says that “the new measures, beginning with environmental protection requirements, carry further expenditure for farmers and a heavy administrative burden without bringing any real benefits”.
Spanish Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries Minister Rosa Aguilar “dismisses” the legislative proposal on CAP reform. She says that what is being proposed is “disappointing” and “fails to address the challenges currently facing European agriculture”. Spain is against the proposed direct aid system (a uniform payment in each member state or region until 2020) as this would mean “abandoning the historic references used by several member states”. It is also of the view that the proposed level of 30% of aid for greening will have to be looked at again.
In Poland, the agriculture minister says that the proposed rebalancing of direct payments “as part of a 14-year cycle is a bit of a joke”. For Marek Sawicki, “this legislative package is not a reform. It's an attempt to make cosmetic changes and to leave things as they stand in distributing European funds.”
The Irish farm minister, Simon Coveney, identified some positives in the proposal but also some aspects with which he was not happy. “The proposed redistribution of funds between member states protects our pillar 1 funding (direct aid) but a threat still hangs over our funding for rural development”, he said. He is also concerned that the greening and basic payment structure could lead to “disruptive change in payments to farmers in Ireland”. He called for greater flexibility for member states to shape their own payment models. Greening, in itself, was not a threat, he said, if it was properly done, and without excessive red tape.
In Germany, the head of the farmers' union (DBV), Gerd Sonnleitner, who is also President of the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations (Copa) feels that the Commission's objectives on greening the CAP “are not achievable” and will “weaken” the sector. As Copa president, Sonnleitner spoke in Brussels of the concerns of farmers at this draft reform which “puts further environmental constraints on farmers”. He suggested that farmers “must be able to choose the measures that are the most appropriate for their farms”.
The agricultural organisation European Coordination Via Campesina regrets that “the concrete proposals don't reflect the objectives of better social/environmental legitimacy of the direct payments”.
Young farmers, represented by the CEJA, were pleased to note that “generational renewal in agriculture is considered a priority”. They called on the European Parliament and the member states to “to endorse and enforce the position adopted by the Commission”.
In the sugar sector, the Confederation of European Beet Growers (CIBE) says it is “outraged” at the proposal to end quotas by 2015. The sugar manufacturers' organisation, the CEFS, has expressed its “grave concern” and its “surprise” since it seemed certain that the Commission would suggest extending the quota system until 2016. European sugar refiners regret that the draft reform “says nothing on how to establish fair agreements on supply of raw materials”, according to the president of their organisation, João Pereira.
In the wine sector, the European Federation of Origin Wines (EFOW) is unhappy that “in confirming the removal planting rights from 1 January 2016”, the Commission “is unmoved, despite the strong position taken by 12 member states and the European Parliament against liberalising this scheme”. The Comité européen des entreprises vins (CEEV) hails the Commission's “desire not to unbalance the sector”.
The European Feed Manufacturers' Federation, FEFAC, says that the “new CAP should boost agricultural productivity” and so “boost research and innovation”.
The European Organisation of Agricultural and Rural Contractors (CEETTAR) says that Commissioner Dacian Ciolos “is increasing calls for paradigm shift but his reform proposal does not cut the mustard. Just as it was in the early days of the CAP, he is defining agriculture as being simply about farming”. CEETTAR says that the Commission is forgetting that contractors make a huge contribution to the competitiveness and sustainability of European agriculture with their qualified staff and cutting edge technology. The Commission is also forgetting that contractors, who are very much at the heart of rural society, have become crucial for both high quality agricultural work and for balanced economic development of all of the EU's regions.
Freshfel, the European fresh fruit and vegetable organisation, says that the “significant” changes proposed for the Community system for distributing fruit to schools are a “welcome improvement”.
United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food Olivier De Schutter said: “The CAP is a €50 billion contradiction of the EU's commitment to help put developing world agriculture back on its feet, and will remain so under today's reform plans.”
Among NGOs, Friends of the Earth Europe feels that the proposed reform will not be enough to protect the environment and the majority of farmers or to rein in the power companies have on the food chain.
Greenpeace says that the Commission proposal will not address the environmental challenges being faced by food production and could waste billions in taxpayers' money.
WWF says that, after the many promises from the Commission, the agricultural lobbies and the les progressive elements of the Commission, European Parliament and Council have managed to scrub out the initial progress, leaving a very weak proposal.
The Eurogroup for animals is “extremely disappointed that the Commission has missed this opportunity to tackle the animal protection issues resulting from intensive systems of agricultural production”. (LC/transl.rt)