Brussels, 15/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - Despite signs of openness of mind on the part of the European Commission on certain points (permanent pastures, diversification of crops etc.), many member states at the Agriculture Council on Tuesday 15 May were still voicing criticism of the proposals on the table, which aim to devote 30% of direct agricultural aid to “greening” measures in the common agricultural policy (CAP). Nonetheless, the Danish Presidency considered that the debate had moved forward. At the next Agriculture Council, debate on reform of the CAP will continue and will also tackle rural development issues. In June, the Danish Presidency will present a progress report on Council discussions.
In her summing up of the European ministers' debate Danish Agriculture Minister Mette Gjerskov said that: - the Council is in favour of additional greening of the CAP by 2020; - the new European Commission text was given a positive reception and constitutes a step in the right direction; - several delegations want more work to be done, particularly with regard to ecological focus zones; - on the issue of greening, a one-size-fits-all solution for Europe is inappropriate and it is necessary to take into account local and regional specificities and different crops; - many delegations called for a “menu” of greening measures, an option rejected by the European Commission; - most delegations considered that pillar 1 (direct aid) and pillar 2 (rural development) in the CAP should have a role to play in greening; - some delegations want environmental certificated mechanisms to be included in greening; - on the diversification of crops, many countries find that the land area thresholds should be increased and farms that mainly consist of rotating grasslands should be taken into consideration; - on the issue of permanent pastures, several countries called for the definition to be expanded so that it included traditional grasslands that include a high environmental content; - concerns were expressed regarding the percentage of permanent grassland in each farm; - on the issue of ecological focus zones, the majority of delegations would like to see greater flexibility (surface areas covered by agri-environmental measures should be included in ecological focus zones); - many countries are refusing any toughening of sanctions if ecological targets have not been reached; - others called for a re-examination of whether the framework directive on water should be included in the cross-compliance.
European agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos said that an ecological approach should help to shift a substantial segment of aid from the first pillar (direct aid and market spending) to measures encouraging sustainable management of natural resources. He said that, “discussions have already taken place in Council preparatory bodies and I note that most delegations agree on the fact that greening should be totally linked to the first pillar. I'm delighted with this because for the Commission it is clearly a point that is not negotiable”. He said that he was prepared to discuss possible adjustments of greening measures in response to the concerns expressed. With regard to permanent grasslands, he agreed that areas where herbaceous species are not predominant should be made eligible, if they are used for pasture and are part of traditional farming systems. The obligation of maintaining permanent pasture, defined as land excluded from crop rotation over a period of at least five years, is possibly a significant constraint on farmers' production choices when they have historically used rotation systems that are longer. Thus, the Commission is prepared to bring the rotation period up to 8 years below which the definition of permanent pasture does not apply. On the question of “crop diversification”, the Commission admits that the exemption threshold of 3 hectares could prove a costly adjustment for small farms that mix crops and livestock. Ciolos therefore accepts an increase in the exemption threshold to a more appropriate level between 3 and 10 hectares of arable land. Finally, Ciolos says that he is prepared to work out with member states a ratio of eligible surface area covered by grasslands (permanent and/or temporary) or left fallow above which the obligation to diversify would not apply for farms under of 50 hectares in size. In the context of crop diversification, several countries asked for the situation of farmers growing more than three crops to be taken into account. Ciolos agreed to amend his proposal in order to enable a farmer growing more than three crops to take into account not only the third crop but also the fourth and so on, in reaching the 5% minimum required for crop diversification. This amendment does not change the maximum percentage required for the main crop (70%) and prevents farmers who have crops amounting to less than 5% increasing the percentage simply to meet the 5% requirement. (LC/transl.fl)