Brussels, 07/06/2012 (Agence Europe) - It would seem that, little by little, the technical work on the complicated issue of “greening” part of the direct aid paid to farmers, in the context of reform of common agricultural policy (CAP), is bearing fruit. Progress was indeed made when the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) met for an informal meeting in Horsens (Denmark) on Monday 4 June. Generally speaking, member states seem to take on board a fair number of ideas put forward by the Presidency of the EU Council, but some of those ideas need some improvement. The text on crop diversification is deemed acceptable by many delegations, while discussions are more difficult when it comes to ecological focus areas (EFA) and permanent grasslands. The exact definition of “green” is also another important issue. The Commission has already suggested that organic farming should not have to abide by the rules on the greening of aid and the Danish Presidency of the EU Council is seeking to widen exemption to a number of certification and rural development schemes. The SCA will return to the matter of greening of direct payments on 11 June.
In addition to the basic payment, each holding will receive a payment per hectare for respecting certain agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. Member states will use 30% of the national envelope in order to pay for this. This is compulsory. The three measures foreseen are: maintaining permanent pasture; crop diversification (a farmer must cultivate at least three crops on his arable land none accounting for more than 70% of the land, and the third at least 5% of the arable area); and maintaining an ecological focus area of at least 7% of farmland (excluding permanent grassland) - i.e. field margins, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape features, biotopes, buffer strips and afforested areas.
On Monday, during the SCA meeting, the Presidency expressed the wish for discussion on ecological focus areas (EFAs). It hopes to have the opinions of member states on what should be included in the EFAs and on regional management of EFAs (Belgian-Dutch proposal on EFA management by producer groups). EU countries were generally in favour of the proposed amendments to Article 32. A vast majority of countries supported a rise in the threshold below which it would not be necessary to reserve EFAs, while some (Poland, Ireland, Finland, Spain, Germany and Romania) felt that the increase of 3 to 10 hectares accepted by the Commission was still insufficient. Furthermore, many member states (Germany, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Finland, Ireland and Romania to mention but a few) consider the EFA threshold and the crop diversification threshold (beyond which crop diversification would be introduced as part of greening) should be harmonised. The percentage of arable land (proposed by the Commission) that should be given over to EFAs (7%) is deemed too high by many countries (including Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Italy). Some delegations, such as Poland and Spain, are calling for a lower 3% limit.
In arable land that should be automatically considered as EFA, some crops could be taken into account rather than cultivation practices, France and Belgium pointed out. Subject to conditions, the Natura 2000 zones could also be considered as EFAs, commented Germany, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary and Spain. The same is true for part of the permanent grasslands (an idea upheld by Germany, France and Sweden in particular), and even for some permanent crops (an idea backed by Spain, Italy, France and Romania in particular). Land surfaces covered by agri-environmental practices could also be included, say Germany and the United Kingdom.
Delegations at the SCA gave their support to a proposal mooted by the Danish Presidency to include in EFAs the land surfaces that are used for crops without the use of fertilisers containing nitrogen, while noting that the system was somewhat complicated and difficult to control (an opinion shared by Spain, Ireland, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom, inter alia). Some countries (including Italy, Spain and Slovenia) suggested reference should rather be made to crops for which there is no nitrogen input, such as legumes, the cultivation of which is easier to monitor.
The Belgian-Dutch proposal to organise EFA management at the level of producer groups was backed by many countries, including France and Poland. Nonetheless, Finland and Spain noted that the Belgian-Dutch project was still fuzzy and the system proposed difficult to keep an eye on. Germany and the United Kingdom felt that the regional approach still required assessment.
The Danish Presidency once again amended its compromise proposals on permanent grasslands in order to extend and identify the land surfaces that must be included in that category.
Some member states (France and Sweden, for example) supported the new definition, while other delegations (Germany, Ireland, Spain, Czech Republic among others) expressed reservation about the ten-year limit (without ploughing) that now appears in the definition of permanent grasslands. Some delegations (Germany, Belgium, France, Finland, the Czech Republic to mention but a few) bemoaned the fact that Article 31 introduces a second kind of permanent grassland, which could make matters more complicated. (LC/transl.jl)