Brussels, 07/11/2011 (Agence Europe) - The proposals on the 30% “greening” of agricultural aid and the new distribution of direct payments were once again criticised on Monday 7 November in Brussels, during a European Parliament hearing on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Ministerial representatives and MEPs advocated a simpler CAP and criticised the complexity of many aspects of the Commission proposals.
Jerzy Buzek, the president of the European Parliament indicated that this was the “first-time” that such a debate had taken place attended by representatives from member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament. He also said that, “we're going to discuss one of our oldest policies, the CAP”.
Paolo De Castro, the chairman of the European Parliament agriculture and rural development committee, promised that the EP would not abdicate its responsibility and would not, “hesitate to put forward its prerogatives if the text on reform is not coherent with the needs required to meet the challenges” in the agricultural arena.
Marek Sawicki, the acting president of the Agriculture Council, called for a simplified CAP that was able to meet new challenges (climate, environmental, as well as citizens' expectations) and which enabled EU agriculture to be more competitive on global markets. During the next Agriculture Council on Monday 14 November, European ministers will discuss the direct payments part of CAP reform. In December, the debate will focus on rural development programmes, explained the Polish minister for agriculture and rural development.
Dacian Ciolos, European Agriculture Commissioner, welcomed the “vitality” of the debate on reform. He did say, however, that they would need to decide on all of the points so that the CAP remains coherent. He added that, “we're going to take political decisions on technical instruments that need to be applied on the ground”. In its proposals, the Commission takes into account: - the need to encourage farmers to increase production sustainability; elements contained in direct support for farmers' income and factors contained in market management, explained the commissioner. He also pointed out that it was necessary to defend farmers so that they are able to work in the general European interest and that the proposal is balanced because it supports production, whilst encouraging farmers to work in a sustainable fashion. The commissioner also said, “we have made an unprecedented effort to use research and innovation towards increasing agricultural productivity sustainably”.
Cyprus has a “neutral and positive role” to play. Sofoclis Aletraris, the Cypriot minister for agriculture explained, “we are very aware of the complexity of subjects we need to tackle. Cyprus does not have any major interests to defend for itself. We also hope to play a neutral but positive role in defending common EU interests”. Cyprus will be in charge of the acting presidency of the Agriculture Council in the second half of 2012 and said that the EU would attempt to conclude the debate on CAP reform before the end of 2012. Sofoclis Aletraris pointed out that the EU would at the same time negotiate the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. He added that, “it is necessary to monitor very closely how the debate on this issue develops”. He highlighted the importance of simplifying the Common Agricultural Policy and emphasised that, “we have to help reduce the effects of climate change and work towards reducing CO2 emissions”. The danger of greater climate change would come from abandoning agricultural activity in low yield regions, he warned, saying it would be necessary to introduce greater transparency on the way in which the second pill ar resources are distributed (rural development programmes).
Luis Manuel Capoulas (S&D, Portugal), the EP rapporteur on direct payments said that the proposed measures were insufficient with regard to aid distribution. Michel Dantin (EPP, France), the EP rapporteur on common market organisation said that recent history has demonstrated that market laws for agricultural products alone were not enough to prevent serious crises confronting the agri-food industry and farmers. He called for a redefinition of competition law so that farmers could organise themselves in exerting their weight on the markets. Giovanni La Via (rapporteur on CAP funding) expressed concern about the fall in the agricultural budget in relation to the total EU budget for the 2014-2020 period.
The Bulgarian minister for agriculture, Miroslav Naydenov, said that in order to meet these challenges they required appropriate funding. He called for more ambitious measures than those proposed in the new aid distribution between member states. He also called for the maximum amount in direct aid to be reached by 2014 and not by 2020, as advocated in the proposal. A greening of up to 320% is too much in the eyes of the Bulgarian minister. He called for greater flexibility with regard to the percentage that each country has to use in resolving its own ecological problems. Bulgaria also urged greater flexibility on the transfer of funding between the first (direct aid) and the second pillar.
Albert Dess (EPP) Germany) said that he was rather disturbed by the package of proposals that could increase the risk of greater bureaucracy. He called for a reasonable compromise to be reached between the Council and the EP, in order to simplify the life of Europe's farmers. He also said that they needed to get rid of injustice and imbalances and added that the, “Devil is hiding in the detail”. He asserted that it was necessary to modify the proposals in order to make them viable.
Iratxe Garcia Perez (S&D, Spain) spoke of uncertainties, particularly on the funding to be allocated to agriculture. “We will not accept any reduction in the CAP budget”, she said. The Commission proposals cause a certain degree of “mistrust” within the EP because they fail to take sufficient account of the diversity of agriculture. She also criticised the proposal on the expiry of sugar quotas in 2015.
German Minister Ilse Aigner said that she backed the Commission's aims, even though some issues remained pending. She said she was awaiting clarification on the budget and the financial perspectives. She advocated clear criteria on the allocation of aid and criticised the plan to cap aid to large farms. She called, too, for a transitional period before the changes in direct payments. “Germany takes the view that the aim of greening aid is acceptable but it has to be consistent with the aims on food supply and biofuel production”, Aigner said. She felt that farmers were already working to protect the environment. “The additional efforts that might be asked for must not be damaging to farmers”, she warned. Simplification is the nub of the matter for us, she said.
Spanish Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Rosa Aguilar Rivero criticised several points in the proposals, in particular the new allocation of direct aid and the greening of aid.
Belgian Minister Sabine Laruelle highlighted a number of positive points (young farmers, emergency measures, producer organisations). “We see neither simplification nor increased transparency. Quite the opposite”, she said. She was critical of the proposal on the new sharing out of direct aid and of the complexity and cost of the proposal on the greening of aid. Belgium also complained about the ending of sugar quotas in 2015.
Several countries and MEPs regretted the lack of measures to deal effectively with extreme price volatility. (LC/transl.fl/rt)