Brussels, 20/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 20 March, in Brussels, many member states again criticised the complexity of the proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), mainly in relation to the greening of direct aid, the new system of direct aid in several layers, the notion of “active farming”, and the rural development fund.
Denmark's Agriculture Minister Mette Gjerskov said during a press conference that the place of farmers is on their land, not in their office, and that they must be relieved of the administrative burden. Simplification is important, too, in order to help national administrations work more effectively, she added.
Dacian Ciolos, European Agriculture Commissioner, promised that simplification will be a main theme of the Commission during discussions on reform. However, behind the word “simplification”, he said with reference to criticism made, one must not hide the lack of political commitment on certain elements of the Commission proposal. The Commission awaits constructive proposals for simplification in light of the proposals on the table from the countries voicing criticism.
During the debate, Poland said it did not see “any sign of simplification” in the proposals, mainly with regard to greening, for aid to disadvantaged areas and support for young farmers. On direct payments, Poland considers that aid per hectare is being reintroduced and is hence a step backward. Hungary considers there is still work to be done, saying that there is no point in simplification if it results in greater complexity than before. The notion of “active farming” proposed by the Commission poses major problems in practice. The greening of aid must not be detrimental to agricultural competitiveness, Hungary stressed. Belgium added that one cannot fail to note that the proposals made do not correspond to the six major principles adopted by the Agriculture Council. Simplification must leave countries and regions the necessary flexibility for taking account of specific features, agricultural structures and production costs, it added, considering that the structure of direct aid, in several layers, and the greening of aid are too complex.
Spain took the view that the Commission's impact assessment acknowledges that reform will increase administrative costs by 15%, an “impossible amount to take on in the current context”. The notion of “active farmer”, the direct aid system, aid capping, and greening only add elements of complication, the Spanish authorities said in substance. The scheme for aid to small farmers must, Spain said, be compulsory, not voluntary. On rural development, rules proposed are over-complex, as are those on controls and sanctions.
Luxembourg expressed the fear that the proposal might lead to a very significant rise in administrative costs. It is possible to attain greening objectives with less complex means, such as rules on cross compliance, Luxembourg said. According to Ireland, it is preferable to improve provisions on cross compliance rather than implement the greening project. Latvia considered the system of payment entitlement, as proposed, too complicated.
A number of proposals are also of concern to Italy, such as the attempt to provide for a definition of the notion of “active farming”, greening (a “complex” measure), the new procedure for rural development (partnership contracts), and over numerous controls. On this point, it is essential for controls to be proportionate to the financial flows to be controlled, Italy said.
The French delegation considered that simplification must not be used to “denature” the political objectives of CAP reform. Efforts must, however, be made to achieve simplification in three areas: - the criteria on keeping permanent pastureland is a source of concern; the basic payment must apply in all countries but the other “layers” (aid for small farmers, targeting of active farmers, increase for young farmers) must be optional; and rules on compliance must be simplified (integrating the framework directive on water would complicate matters).
Germany said there are positive aspects in the proposals such as the cross compliance of aid. However, the following aspects must be simplified: - the notion of “active farming”, greening (which is difficult to implement for small farmers) and aid to young farmers which must be voluntary. The United Kingdom considers reform of the CAP should be less of a burden for farmers and national administrations. It is not certain that proposals are all along these lines. “If greening is wanted, then costs must be reduced”, said the United Kingdom. (LC/transl.jl)