Brussels, 26/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - At their meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday 26 April, a majority of European agriculture ministers requested that support for young farmers and the subsidies regime in favour of small farms should be optional rather than compulsory as the European Commission advocates in the package of proposals on reform of common agricultural policy (CAP). EU countries were divided over keeping some subsidies coupled (i.e. linked to volumes produced), with some wanting more premiums of this kind (and, for example, extension to tobacco or to pigmeat and poultry meat), while the so-called liberal countries (United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands) said coupled support was a step in the wrong direction given that the EU has undertaken to decouple direct subsidies. Finally, a majority of countries supported the optional nature of complementary support measures for farmers in regions where there are natural constraints to farming activity.
The Agriculture Council discussed, from 11.30am to 1.00pm, a number of aspects of the proposal on direct payments (young farmers, small farms, optional coupled support and complementary support measures for farmers in regions with natural limitations). During the afternoon, it discussed other themes such as the capping of aid and aid convergence (EUROPE will come back to this).
On the subject of support for young farmers (up to 2% of the annual national ceiling), Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos said that only 14% of farmers from the 27 EU member states are under the age of 40 and only 6% of those are under 35. Mandatory support for young farmers must provide an answer to the question of generation renewal and the complicated situation of young farmers.
The commissioner said that, when it comes to the matter of simplified support for small farms (up to 10% of the annual national ceiling), this means “purely administrative simplification” - a very significant measure for reducing the administrative burden on farmers and national administrations by €140 million. This concerns all EU countries. For 20 member states, it represents over 20% of subsidy requests (and may be as high as 55% in some countries). Ciolos said this does not simply concern member states that have joined the EU recently but that founding states, by no means the least significant, are also concerned for over 20% of their dossiers. The regime will reduce administrative charges by simplifying formalities (aid requests, inspections) and by granting exemption from obligations relating to greening, and controls and sanctions with regard to cross compliance. Even though the system of controls and penalties for cross compliance do not apply to these farmers, they will still be under an obligation to meet all legal requirements stipulated in cross compliance regulations.
The Commission suggests countries should be allowed to allocate a limited part of the national ceiling to coupled payments in order to face difficulties that might arise in certain sectors or regions.
The aim of the new Pillar One payments regime (direct aid) in favour of naturally disadvantaged areas (up to 5% of the annual national ceiling) is to allow member states to respond with increased levels of basic direct aid to meet specific and priority needs in certain disadvantaged areas, the commissioner explained.
Poland took the view that the Commission proposals do not represent simplification, apart from the proposal on the small farm support scheme. On the subject of coupled aid, the Polish minister wanted to include tobacco and pigmeat. The Polish view was that support for young farmers should be solely under Pillar Two.
Hungary called for a rise in the limit (10%) of coupled aid and for tobacco to be included, as well as pigmeat and poultry meat. It accepts the regime for young farmers and could also agree to it being optional (given the fact that most countries are calling for this). Hungary also agrees on support to small farms and requests that countries be allowed to choose whether to pay subsidies in areas disadvantaged by natural constraints.
Belgium wanted aid to young farmers to be optional, as for support to regions that are naturally disadvantaged. When it comes to the support system for small farms, Belgium is against dispensing farmers in this system from the need to follow rules on greening and eco-cross compliance.
Spain wished to extend coupled aid to cotton and tobacco and supported the mandatory nature of support for young farmers.
Sweden was highly critical of keeping certain coupled aid schemes (recommending the elimination of direct aid) and called for means under Pillar One for naturally disadvantaged areas to be transferred to Pillar Two (rural development). It considers that aid to young farmers and support for small farmers should be optional.
The Czech Republic called for an increase in the capping of coupled support to cover “sensitive sectors”. It took a stance in favour of the optional nature of other support schemes (young farmers, small farms, zones with natural disadvantages).
France's representative felt it was preferable for the different countries to be able to continue choosing the most appropriate way to support young farmers. He said the small farmer provision was not suitable for some countries where administrative costs of implementation would be excessive. France therefore requested that the scheme remain optional. It argued for certain coupled aid to be maintained, and said the proposal was balanced. Support for farmers in regions faced with natural disadvantages must be kept under Pillar Two (and therefore be optional in Pillar One), the French representative said.
Slovenia called for coupled premiums to be extended to the pigmeat sector and supported the mandatory nature of support for young farmers.
Portugal called for a 10% increase in the ceiling for coupled aid and supported proposals made in relation to young farmers and small farms.
Germany called for the various aid schemes to be optional (young farmers, small farms) and supported the optional nature of subsidies to areas that are naturally disadvantaged.
Finland requested greater flexibility for coupled aid and a 5% instead of the 2% increase in support for young farmers. It also criticised the Pillar One system on areas with specific natural constraints.
Romania requested the extension of coupled aid made to poultry and pork sectors and welcomed the proposal on young farmers (it asked for an increase to 100 hectares instead of 25% of the eligibility criteria). Bulgaria requested coupled aid to be maintained for poultry, pork, tobacco, rose production and the system on young famers, whilst requesting that the system on small farms and areas with specific natural constraints be voluntary. Estonia does not want small farms to be exempt from rules on eco-conditions and the greening of aid. It wants aid for areas with specific natural constraints to be voluntary and to be part of Pillar Two.
The British minister criticised maintaining coupled aid and opposed the inclusion of tobacco on the list (tobacco should not be subsidised, according to the United Kingdom). Aid to young farmers should also be voluntary, in the opinion of the UK, which is also concerned about small farms being exempt from greening rules and eco-conditions. Malta, however, agrees with the exemptions on the small farms system.
Slovakia requested that pork and poultry be added to the list of coupled aid and requested that the young farmers system be voluntary. It criticised the system on small farms (10% is too high and the ceiling should be reduced to 5%). It also opposes exemptions included in the simplified system on small farms.
The Netherlands is also concerned about coupled aid and, like Sweden, called for funds included in Pillar One for young farmers to be transferred to Pillar Two. It also called for other aid (small farms and areas with specific natural constraints) to be voluntary.
Luxembourg called for a simpler support mechanism for the young (a forfeit sum) and considered that it was out of the question for the small farm system to become compulsory.
Italy said that coupled aid should cover tobacco. It also said that the proposals on young farmers went in the right direction. Italy is concerned about aid to small farms but may agree to aid to areas with specific natural constraints. Greece welcomed the young farmer and small farm projects (but called for adjustments).
Ireland would prefer a compulsory system for young farmers and voiced concerns about exemptions included in the system on small farms. It also has doubts about the effectiveness of payments to areas with specific natural constraints. Cyprus has called for more flexibility on coupled aid.
The Danish delegation repeated its reservations about coupled aid and called for aid to young farmers and small farms to be voluntary. In the context of support to vulnerable areas, Denmark said that payments should be transferred to Pillar Two (in response to requirements in the framework guidelines on water). (LC/transl.fl)