Brussels, 23/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - The Cypriot Presidency hopes to take the forthcoming Agriculture Council (28-29 November) to a partial general approach on reform of common agricultural policy (CAP), but nothing could be less certain. Many elements of the package continue to pose a problem, beginning with the greening of part of direct aid, and the unknown outcome of the European Council on the 2014-2020 financial framework, which complicates the issue.
During the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) of 19 and 20 November, most member states said that obtaining a first “agreement” on the four main regulations for CAP reform was premature, as many of the points depend on an agreement being reached for the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020. The Cypriot Presidency therefore presented to the experts of EU member states four proposals for a text on which they have not been able to give their position, considering that they have had too little time to examine them properly. There will be a great deal to discuss in Council, as member states have almost all said that there must first be appropriate scrutiny of the texts. The Cypriot Presidency is therefore expected to seek a bare minimum agreement during the November Council and to postpone discussion on the trickiest matters until the last Agriculture Council of the year (18-20 December).
Many elements of reform still pose problems, even outside those linked to the financial framework. For direct payments, most discussions in Council are expected to concern greening. The Cypriot Presidency has somewhat adjusted its proposal compared to last week (see EUROPE 10732). The definition of areas of ecological interest has been reviewed. Perennial energy crops and crops without sodium fertilisation are no longer on the list of eligible areas. Many delegations would like the SCA to hold an indepth debate on the question of surfaces of ecological interest. Most member states have supported the system of equivalence tabled with prior validation by the European Commission.
Still under the first pillar, agriculture ministers should also take a stance on the treatment of small farmers. Several delegations (France, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.) have said they are in favour of this regime being voluntary and for farmers not to benefit from an exemption from greening implementation.
On rural development, the presidency seeks to reach a compromise on irrigation, suggesting that farmers be able to extend their irrigated surface area as long as they improve the efficiency of the installation. It has done away with the possibility for public managers to benefit from forestry measures except for fire prevention measures.
On the single common market organisation (CMO), the presidency put forward a compromise text concerning the recognition of producer organisations (PO) that would be compulsory in all sectors but voluntary for PO associations and joint-trade organisations. The presidency suggests that the Commission be able to extend a marketing norm to all sectors and impose compulsory labelling on the place where an agricultural product is produced or originates.
Finally, on the horizontal regulation, the final text will depend very much on what has been decided in the three other regulations.
Joint declaration by new member states. The agriculture ministers of the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, who meet in Warsaw on 15 and 16 November, have published a joint statement on CAP reform. They trust that the new EU member states will be able to maintain their coupled payments up to 20% of the envelope of the first pillar in order to support sensitive sectors. They also insist on the need to set in place ambitious convergence of direct payments between member states. On the subject of greening, the ministers want the specific characteristics of member states to be taken into account when defining the category of farms that are “green by definition”. Furthermore, farms of a surface area of less than 15 hectares or one third of the average surface area of farms in that member state must also be considered as meeting the criterion. Finally, for rural development, they consider that each member state should have sufficient flexibility to decide on its spending without fixed limits, for example in terms of agro-environmental measures. (LC/transl.jl)