Brussels, 03/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - On the initiative of Germany, a dozen or so countries in the Stockholm Group have presented new ideas to take forward the issue of the greening of agricultural aid, an important and highly controversial measure in the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) proposed by the European Commission for the period after 2013. For all that, negotiations remain at a standstill and some sources are speaking of a possible one-year delay in adopting the reform (which is supposed to come into effect from 2014). The next Agriculture Council, on 14 May, will discuss the greening of aid.
The countries of the enlarged Stockholm Group (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) have tabled a counter-proposal giving farmers greater flexibility on greening. The paper, which was discussed on the sidelines of the Agricultural Council in Luxembourg on 26 April, was presented at the Special Committee on Agriculture on Monday 30 April. No member of the Stockholm Group has formally signed the document, but all supported the initiative, despite some differences of opinion among their number.
In its initial proposal on CAP reform, presented last October, the Commission called for 30% of payments from the first pillar of the CAP to be granted to farmers who comply with the following environmental provisions: diversification of crops (with at least three different crops, none accounting for more than 70% of the available land or less than 5%); maintaining permanent pasture equivalent to the 2013 level; and maintaining “ecological focus areas” or landscape features (for example, fallow land, field margins, hedges or buffer strips) of at least 7% of farmland. Organic farmers automatically become eligible for this 30% and “have no additional requirements as they are shown to provide a clear environmental benefit”. Several countries feel the Commission proposals to be unrealistic as they would have the same things done in Cyprus as in the north of Finland, an approach which makes little agronomic, or indeed environmental, sense.
In its paper, the Stockholm Group says that the one-size-fits-all approach taken by the Commission is not the most effective way to ensure that significant benefits for the environment are achieved in the European Union. They suggest a list of options from which member states could select so that greening is properly suited to the specific conditions of each member state in order to be able to reach the environmental objectives. Member states would have the possibility of choosing from three options.
The first would allow at least 10% of first pillar funding (direct aid) to be used with no co-funding requirement to support agri-environmental initiatives which come under the second pillar (rural development). This proposal does not, however, have universal support within the Stockholm Group (in particular Spain, Finland, Austria and France oppose it), as it is felt that it would weaken the first pillar. Transferring greening measures to the second pillar is supported by Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Luxembourg. These measures would, therefore, be voluntary.
The second (more developed) option would bring greater flexibility to the Commission proposal. Certain agricultural practices could be recognised automatically as green, in similar fashion to the Commission's proposal for organic agriculture. These “green by definition” farmers would be those who are already involved in environmental certification schemes, or those who have at least 50% of their land in a Natura 2000 area, or those whose land is made up of at least 50% grassland. Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos is prepared to discuss this point and to recognise some private or national schemes as being directly eligible for greening aid. However, he warns, the scheme would have to cover the whole area of the farm and the aid would have to come from the first pillar. Ciolos will brook no discussion on these two stipulations, otherwise European citizens will not understand the reform. For farmers who are not “green by definition”, the Stockholm Group suggests that each member state should select, from a list of nine possibilities, three greening measures which would then become compulsory within its borders. The nine are: 7% of land being agri-environmental (in addition to hedges, ponds and grassy borders, this could include areas within Natura 2000 sites or any other land that is part of an environmental programme); crop diversification; maintaining permanent pasture land, afforested areas or areas for perennial crops; energy saving certification; up to 10% of first-pillar funding being used to finance agri-environmental measures (second pillar); a percentage still to be determined of inter-row crops; a soil quality improvement plan; and ecological management of grassland. This list has the support of a large majority of member states. In order to avoid any distortion, France and Germany in particular say that there would have to be some kind of weighting attached to each of the various possibilities as they are not all equivalent in terms of effectiveness or application.
The third option available to member states is to build greening measures into cross-compliance. Instead of basic payment of 70% with a 30% bonus for greening, all farmers would have to meet greening requirements if they were to receive first pillar aid. In a sense, this combines the environmental aid with the basic payment. Austria and Ireland are quite keen on this, since, with only having one system to manage rather than two, it simplifies matters.
As an indication of the differences among countries, Italy and Portugal want nothing to do with greening as proposed by the Commission. Neither do they support the Stockholm Group, which is calling for greening that is effective and tailored to the specific conditions of each country. The Commission, generally, does not support the Stockholm Group suggestions and is sticking by its initial proposal. (LC/transl.rt)