Luxembourg, 20/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - EU agriculture ministers gave a very mixed welcome on Thursday 20 October to the proposals on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Criticism was directed mainly at the complicated system proposed for the greening of 30% of aid, at the new distribution of aid among the countries and the lack of ambition in the market regulation measures. In addition, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are against any cap on aid.
Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos reiterated the broad thrust of the legislative proposals brought forward by the Commission on 12 October. He said that “threats to European agriculture come not only from the weather and climate change, but also from the lack of stability of the markets and the sharp price falls and producers' incomes”. The Commission is proposing degressivity of basic income aid from €150,000 and capping aid from €300,000. The mechanism, however, “will not penalise farms which create jobs”, Ciolos promised.
The Commission is proposing, with regard to crisis management instruments: - a crisis reserve of €3.5 billion to be used for market measures in the event of a market crisis of loss of consumer confidence; - an exceptional disruption clause to address the more serious contingencies. The Commission has to be able to take emergency measures, with no delay in the event of a crisis. These measures may involve triggering safety nets (intervention, private storage) or exceptional additional steps - in the case of the second pillar, a new crisis management instrument, an instrument to combat volatility, in particular excessive income volatility (insurance, mutual funds).
Hungary welcomed the proposals on aid for young farmers and on the aid scheme for small farms. It said that measures to green aid would not help simplify the CAP. With regard to redistribution of aid, Hungary argued that there should be no distortions among member states. It said, too, that we need” market management instruments.
Belgium protested at the proposals, the effect of which would be to reduce the means made available to the country's farmers. Belgian minister Sabine Laruelle said that the proposed aid scheme “is not any simpler” and that convergence (redistribution of aid) must not be too abrupt. She used the image of lasagne to describe the complexity of the aid system proposed (layer upon layer). Belgium believes the greening proposed is too complex.
Spanish minister Rosa Aguilar said she was “disappointed” by the Commission proposals which do nothing to address the challenges to which agriculture has to respond. “We reject the new basic payment”, she stated. She was also critical of the proposed arrangements for the greening of aid.
Sweden would have liked the Commission to have gone further in redistributing aid. The proposed direct aid system, it feels, is too complex and aid for young farmers and small farmers should be optional, said Swedish minister Eskil Erlandsson. He wants a system that would allow greater flexibility on greening, with a catalogue of measures. He also criticised the retention of some coupled aid (that is, which retains a link with production levels).
The Czech Republic called for a CAP that is “transparent, non-bureaucratic and ensures competition” between enterprises. The proposals, it says, will not bring about these objectives. It believes that the new support system will not simplify anything. It called for the simplified aid system which it uses at present (single area payment) to be retained. The Czech Republic is opposed to the capping of aid proposed by the Commission and feels that the greening of aid should be optional. In addition, it criticised one of the greening measures - maintaining an “ecological focus area” of at least 7% of farmland, made up, for example, of field edges, hedges, trees wooded areas. On rural development, it called for aid to be paid to farmers in Natura 2000 areas.
France said that the budget proposed for agriculture for 2014-2020 was “the lowest possible”, and that it formed a sound basis for negotiation. French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire defended the retention of regulation to “improve the operation of the market”. With regard to the redistribution of aid among member states, he agrees with ending historic references but advocated that redistribution be “progressive and viewed as a whole” (first pillar on aid and second pillar on rural development). France is happy with convergence of aid but “we need time” to put it in place and some area will have to be excluded. It agrees with the principle of greening aid but on condition that it is simple and does not lead to too much red tape. Thirty per cent greening was felt to be too much, however. France also called for retention of targeted aid for fragile sectors.
Portugal called for a strong and fair CAP. It felt the Commission proposal to be a sound basis for discussion. However, it felt that delaying the issue of full convergence until after 2020 was putting it off for too long. The Commission proposes that the gap between the amounts currently provided for and 90% of the EU27 average be reduced by one third, and it hopes, after 2020, to debate the longer-term objective of achieving full convergence (fair distribution of direct support throughout the whole EU).
German minister Ilse Aigner felt that the Commission proposal on the 2014-2020 financial framework goes “beyond” what Germany proposed. Germany supported the Commission's ideas on area aid at regional and national levels and on a transparent system of aid distribution. It criticised the complexity of the system proposed for greening and felt that the requirement that at least 7% of farmland be kept as an ecological focus area was not in line with the aim of producing more food. Germany does not want any capping of aid.
Finland accepted the transitional period proposed for moving to a fairer distribution of aid, but also criticised the aid system proposed for becoming “too complicated”.
The Commission proposals are on the right track, said Austrian minister Nikolaus Berlakovich. He noted, however, that the Commission proposes significant amendment to the system of direct payments and that this system is too complex. Austria called for payments to take account of local peculiarities. The proposed system of greening was felt to be too complex.
Bulgaria would have liked to have seen more ambition on convergence of aid - just like Estonia, which feels that the proposal will give its farmers 60% of the average by 2020. Estonia called for 90% by that date.
Caroline Spelman, the UK secretary of state, spoke of a “missed opportunity”, criticising the greening measures and the 7% ecological focus areas. She also suggested that capping of aid would lead to fragmentation of farms.
For Slovakia, not enough ambition has been shown on aid redistribution. Thirty per cent on greening is too much, and it expressed reservations over capping.
The Netherlands was highly critical as the proposal on aid would lead to a reduction of more than 8% in payments to Dutch farmers, something which is not acceptable.
Italy felt that the Commission was heading in exactly the opposite direction from the objective of simplification, with, for example, an “increasingly rigid” aid system. “Adjustments will have to be made”, said Francesco Saverio Romano. He did not agree with the proposed redistribution of resources, or the greening measures or the changes brought to the second pillar of the CAP (rural development).
Latvia was very disappointed by the proposal on the new distribution of aid. Only Denmark and the Netherlands supported the Commission proposals on greening 30% of direct aid. (LC/transl.rt)