Luxembourg, 23/10/2012 (Agence Europe) - The first debate on internal convergence of aid (the aim of which is to reach a uniform level of distribution of direct support at national or regional level by 2019) showed, on Monday 22 October, that most member states want flexibility in the matter in order to avoid over-rapid changes having to take place on farms (see EUROPE 10715). The Commission suggested rebalancing aid via a uniform payment per hectare scheme. Aid is today distributed on the basis of past production, which means that 80% of aid goes to 20% of the most productive farms, to the disadvantage of farmers that have chosen more extensive production methods.
A large majority of EU agriculture ministers agrees that a direct payments system based on purely historical levels of payments constitutes an outdated concept in need of reform. Member states have expressed differing opinions on the proposal aimed at setting in place single area payment schemes at national or regional level by 2019. Many countries have called for a more flexible approach, including on the matters of timetable and level of convergence.
Denmark takes the view that the proposal could have major adverse consequences. It believes that such redistribution will not make common agricultural policy (CAP) more legitimate, and criticises the proposal of a one-size-fits-all model.
Poland was opposed to greater flexibility when it comes to internal convergence and said one should not turn one's back on the simplified regime that benefits most of the new EU countries, the simplified single area payment scheme (SAPS).
Hungary has asked to be able to continue using historical references during a transitional period. Belgium takes the view that the proposal goes too far too fast. It strongly criticises the proposal and calls for a more gradual system, proposing a two-stage scheme. During the first two years, greening should be implemented and then, from the third year on, internal convergence should be gradual until 2020. According to Belgium, it will be necessary to set a maximum ceiling for losses per farm. Also, some coupled aid should be kept in place and some convergence sectors should be excluded.
Spain called for caution in the new breakdown of aid. It also defended, as did other countries also, an alternative and progressive scheme.
Sweden defended the proposals put forward by the Commission on condition that convergence is socially acceptable. The Czech Republic called for the possibility to foresee complementary national payments.
France said it is necessary to leave historical references behind gradually. A single rate in 2020 is not possible, it felt, and it is necessary to review the first 40% step. France hopes to be able to provide additional support for each farm. It was very open to aid greening, and supports the request made by the new member states to apply the SAPS.
Slovenia was of the opinion that all EU countries should make an effort to attain the internal convergence objective.
Germany agrees with the fact that historic references are no longer justified. It supports the proposal of reaching uniform values after a transitional period. The country agrees, also, with the requests made by countries that call for greater flexibility.
Finland agrees with the Commission's proposal while calling for flexibility. Austria said the transitional period proposed was too short and felt it should extend up to 2020-2021. The United Kingdom was in agreement with the flat rate system.
The Netherlands was highly critical of the scheme proposed which, it says, results in disproportionate sacrifices for the country. Italy cannot agree to a single rate in 2019. If applied, that rate would represent, for some farms, a 90% decrease compared to current aid, something that the Italian delegation finds unacceptable. Italy therefore calls for gradual convergence in order to avoid all trauma. (LC/transl.jl)