Brussels, 19/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - As could have been anticipated, the countries of the EU have shown differences of opinion over the total amount to be earmarked for agricultural expenditure during the next multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020. At the meeting of Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States to the EU) on Thursday 18 April, the member states looked at the heading 2 plank (agricultural expenditure) of the “negotiating box” on the financial framework 2014-2020 and also expressed their disagreement over certain elements of the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), as well as the upper limits on greening of certain aid. In May, the General Affairs Council will discuss this heading 2 dossier.
Several countries, such as France, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Hungary, said that the amount proposed by the Commission for agricultural expenditure 2014-2020 should be an absolute minimum. The United Kingdom and Sweden recommended cutting agricultural expenditure and certain countries (Germany, the UK and Sweden) stressed the need to cut expenditure in all headings of the budget. Latvia and Estonia stressed that if the upper limit proposed had to be amended, then the money for the CAP should be cut.
On the convergence of aid (the Commission is proposing a new distribution of aid so that the ones that received a bit less will receive a bit more), certain countries, mainly the new countries of the EU, called for a more ambitious approach than the one put forward. Poland even called for a total alignment of direct aid within the forthcoming multi-annual financial framework.
Eight countries, among them Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, criticised the upper limit on direct aid paid to large farms, whilst others supported the idea.
On greening, several countries (including Spain, Hungary, Portugal and Slovakia) said that the percentage proposed (30% of direct aid) was too high. Italy, the Czech Republic, Ireland and the Netherlands called for greater flexibility in the application of the measure. The Czech Republic recommended a voluntary approach to the matter. Some countries, such as Austria and Lithuania, suggested that the rules which already exist in eco-conditionality (payment of aid subject to the respect of certain criteria, notably environmental ones) be taken into account. Germany agrees that rules should be set in place to improve the environmental performance of the CAP. France takes the view that greening is important to legitimise the first pillar of the CAP (direct aid and market expenditure). Sweden and the United Kingdom called to be allowed to go beyond the 10% limit on transferring funds between the first and second (rural development) pillars. However, these countries expressed scepticism over the inverse flexibility (transferring from the second pillar to the first). (LC/transl.fl)