Brussels, 26/09/2012 (Agence Europe) - At the Agriculture Council on Monday 24 September the German minister, Ilse Aigner, argued for the European Commission to remove the review of the system for less favoured areas from the current debate on the common agricultural policy reform (rural development section) and to accept to deal with this difficult file at a later stage. Her point of view was shared by her Austrian and Luxembourgish counterparts, who ask for more time to analyse the impact of this review. Poland suggested that the proposed changes only be implemented after a long period of transition ending in 2020.
European Commissioner for Agriculture Dacian Ciolos is opposed to such a postponement, recalling that, based on more than 140 national criteria, the current system - with its estimated cost of €12.8 billion for the 2007-2013 period - would probably end up in payments in certain areas that are no longer justified, which saps its credibility.
The Commission proposes implementing a revised system in 2014, with a new delimitation of areas with important natural constraints (other than mountainous) based on eight biophysical criteria (low temperatures; drought; excessively wet soils; limited soil drainage; unfavourable texture and porosity; weak rooting depth; poor chemical properties; steep slope). In parallel, it suggests a transition period of four years for areas which will be called to lose their current status and will no longer be eligible for specific EU payments. The Cypriot Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers, for its part, proposes that the new system be applied in 2016, with a transition period of four years.
During the discussion Poland also called on the Commission to reduce from 66% to 55% the minimum part of an area's usable agricultural surface having to respond to at least one biophysical criterion for the farmers of this area to be eligible for the specific payment. With some member states asking for more time to define the eight criteria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Romania and the United Kingdom stated that they could accept the renewed system being implemented, as a compromise, in 2015.
A large number of member states (Denmark, Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Slovenia, Portugal, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Malta, United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, Latvia, Italy, Greece) asked for the fine-tuning mechanism - in other words, the exclusion of areas where natural constraints have already been overcome - to be made more flexible. Luxembourg and Poland even considered that this operation should be uniquely voluntary.
Ciolos acknowledged the need for flexibility with regard to the definition of the transition period. He also said that for the areas which are under, but close to, the eligibility threshold it is possible to use the category of so-called areas with specific constraints, where agriculture must be maintained for environmental reasons or to preserve the tourist potential or to protect the coast. This category is currently under-used, while each member state has the flexibility needed to delimit up to 10% of its usable agricultural surface in this category.
Very reluctant, Aigner was determined to underline, when she came out of the ministerial discussion, that this was “a policy debate and not a decision” and that some delegations “had fundamental reservations with regard to the mechanisms planned for the less favoured areas”. (LC/transl.fl)