Brussels, 19/09/2012 (Agence Europe) - The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament went on the offensive, on Tuesday 18 September, over the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), proposing that payment of aid be capped at €100,000 per farm and that export subsidies, “which are further destroying the family farms of the countries of the south”, be ended. The group also criticises the European Commission for its lack of ambition on the “greening” of CAP aid. José Bové (Greens/EFA, France) slammed the attitude of the two main political groups (EPP and S&D) which, he said, “want to take over the debate (on the reform) so that nothing changes”. Most of the amendments put down, Bové claims, are nothing more than “echoes of what takes place in the Council” with MEPs adopting stances according to which areas they come from.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens/EFA, Germany) said that the big idea in the “in-depth” reform the group wants to see is capping direct aid at €100,000 per farm. This would mean the EU could recover €7 billion per year (from a total of €40 billion for the CAP). “This money could be re-invested in rural development, which would allow rebalancing of the CAP between east and west and between large- and small-scale farmers”, he argued. He pointed out that 80% of CAP direct aid went to 20% of farms. The CAP must be made more just, he stated, adding that the €7 billion saved could also be used to create jobs. Over the next ten years, “if we do nothing to change the CAP, Europe will lose almost seven million farmers”, he warned. More young people must be brought into farming, he argued, as “70% of farmers are over 55”.
Bové, who is deputy chairman of the Parliament agriculture committee, pointed out that the CAP now fell within the Parliament's area of responsibility (co-decision with the Council). “We cannot afford to miss this opportunity for the future of agriculture and for European democracy”, he stated. The CAP must be at the heart of European concerns, he argued. The CAP must not be allowed to fall “into the hands of the few, as is unfortunately the case today”. Bové noted that, in the Parliament agriculture committee, “the large groups, the EPP and the Social Democrats, are trying to take over the debate so that nothing changes in the CAP”. According to the Greens, aid must be redistributed by means of a €100,000 cap per farm. The group points out that the Commission proposal is for a €300,000 cap, “which will affect only a few thousand farmers across the EU”. Most European farmers receive less than €5,000, while 3,000 farmers receive more than €300,000 or even more than €500,000, Bové pointed out. He also criticised the “waste” in the EU as exports continued to be subsidised to the tune of some €200,000 million. The Greens/EFA Group is calling for an end to export aid.
Bové said the EU's trade balance in agriculture is in the red as Europe imports more than 30 million tonnes of soya to feed cattle, pigs and poultry. “We spend 15 billion euro on imports when this plant protein could be produced in Europe”, he said. He called for a change in the CAP so that the EU recovers its “independence in plant protein”.
“Little agreements among friends”. Bové said that the way in which the talks on CAP reform had been launched had been “catastrophic”. In the reports proposed, there was, with the exception of the report on market measures by Michel Dantin (EPP, France), “no backbone”, only vagueness. That was the reason for the incredible number (almost 9,000) of amendments. Many of these amendments had to do with where the MEPs hailed from. “The Parliament is finding itself something of an echo of what is happening in the Council”, Bové said, railing against the displays of selfishness around the table rather than talk about the general good. The problem with the method of negotiation is that the Parliament is on the defensive on CAP reform as the EU aim is to come to agreement on the budget first, he said. He even criticised the chair of the Parliament agriculture committee, Paolo de Castro (S&D, Italy), for not wanting take on a Parliament plenary session debate. He said, too, that he feared that discussions with the Council would be held informally so that agreement might be reached, even before the plenary session vote on the Parliament's position.
Also from among the Greens, Martin Hausling (Germany) said that one of the principal points in the Commission's proposal was the greening of the CAP. However, he felt that in negotiations there was a risk that the initial proposal might be watered down. He said that a “green” CAP should encourage crop rotation and not support monocrops. There was less and less fallow land, which poses a problem for CO2 absorption and there is a loss of biodiversity, he added. “We want at least 7% of agricultural land not to be under crops”, he said.
He argued, too, that there had to be counterparties to payment of public aid - and the over-use of antibiotics must not be forgotten. In addition, what is being proposed for rural development “does not go nearly far enough”, in his view. Hausling fears that savage cuts will be made, mainly to rural development credits (second pillar), as a high level of co-funding will be called for. “We are afraid the Germans will tell us: money is needed for the first pillar (direct aid and market spending) and not for the second”. (LC/transl.fl)