Brussels, 24/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - France, amongst others, did not greatly appreciate the attack made by Sweden on agricultural expenditure, during a debate in Luxembourg on Tuesday 24 April, on the agriculture and cohesion planks of the negotiating box on the financial framework 2014-2020 (see also other article). Additionally, a number of countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Slovakia and the Czech Republic opposed the plan to bring in an upper limit on aid to large farms.
At the General Affairs Council, Sweden and other countries (including Germany, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) made new calls for expenditure to be frozen, representing a cut of €100 billion compared to the budget proposed by the Commission for the period 2014-2020. Sweden in particular attacked the budget of the common agricultural policy (CAP), recommending “a progressive dismantling of agricultural aid, rather than reducing credits for sectors which are more likely to create jobs”. “I hope that there will be a certain amount of support for our idea”, said Sweden.
Immediately after Sweden's contribution, France observed that “what my colleague who has just spoken said is not too favourable to France, so I will try to be more consensual”. Over the period 2014-2020, the Commission is proposing to stabilise agricultural funds at 2013 levels, which means that as far as France is concerned, the proposal constitutes an “absolute minimum”. “We will not subscribe to a draft agreement which goes below this minimum”, the country warned. France is open to a redistribution of direct aid between the countries of the EU, but opposed to any “linear convergence option which would give certain countries a disproportionate weight compared to the current situation”. France also opposes the inclusion of other possible mechanisms to adjust direct payments in the negotiating box.
In its attacks on the CAP, Sweden was supported by the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom.
Finland took position in favour of objective criteria for the distribution of funds under the rural development programmes. The idea of merging the first pillar (direct aid and market expenditure) and the second pillar of the CAP “is not a good idea”, in this country's view.
For Romania, the amounts proposed by the Commission represent the minimum which is acceptable. On the redistribution of direct payments, this country argued in favour of a fixed-rate payment at EU level. Romania opposes the idea of an upper limit on support to large farms and called for the current co-funding rates for the rural development programmes to be kept in place.
Germany, which pleaded in favour of the total budget for the period 2014-2020 not to exceed 1% of EU gross national income, called for the redistribution of aid to be limited and added that the Commission's proposal imposes substantial cuts on German farmers.
In the view of Spain, the agricultural funds proposed by the Commission are the absolute minimum. The country agrees with the principle of the greening of CAP aid, but the percentage proposed (30%) “seems excessive to me”, said the Spanish government. “We have been talking about spending smarter, but we also need to spend fairer and more equitably”, said Spain, in reference to document signed by seven countries (Austria, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) calling for: - an increase in the impact of EU funds on growth and employment; - assurances that expenditure under EU funds will be managed, programmed, controlled and evaluated more effectively.
Austria argued in favour of preserving environmentally friendly agriculture and stressed agriculture in mountainous areas. The country supports the aid convergence plan, but does not support any linear alignment. Austria opposes the merger of the first and second pillars and agrees to the greening of aid (if this does not end up complicating matters).
Belgium lamented the reduction of resources under the CAP and defended a fair redistribution of direct aid. Lithuania criticised the lack of ambition in the proposals on direct aid. Poland said that the Commission was proposing a CAP of the past.
In the view of Italy, spending EU funds more smartly does not mean reducing the funds. “You can spend a really small budget badly.” Italy is extremely critical of the proposal on direct aid. “I feel that it is not fair or equitable.” The main criterion (surface area) is too simplistic, it is not fair, we have to take account of the added value provided by agricultural production and favour considerations related to purchasing power in order to take into account the differences between countries and different agricultural production types, stressed Italy. On the division of the rural development fund, Italy feels that far more objective criteria should be used (number of holdings, organic production areas, soil erosion index, percentage of young people employed in the agricultural sector).
Ireland spoke in favour of a strong CAP, with clear support for agricultural production. This country is concerned by the plans on the table regarding the redistribution of direct aid and the greening of certain aid. Portugal, like Spain, felt the 30% greening was too high. Along with most of the new countries of the EU, Portugal feels that the level of conversion of direct aid is not enough. (LC/transl.fl)