Brussels, 29/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - Most of the 27 agriculture ministers meeting up in Brussels on 28 November welcomed the equivalence principle aimed at providing member states with greater flexibility with regard to the application of greening direct Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments after 2013. Nonetheless, during one of the debates organised on the subject, it also became apparent that not everybody agreed on how this principle should be applied in practice. The Commissioner for agriculture, Dacian Ciolos, proposed this equivalence concept to member states as a means of providing recognition of certain agri-environmental measures (AEM) and national certification measures as the equivalent of one or several of the three greening criteria. He therefore sought to nip in the bud the demand made for selective implementation of greening criteria. The idea of a menu of greening measures has subsequently disappeared from the Council and European Parliament discussions. Nonetheless, as discussions move forward, the practical application of this equivalence mechanism still remains vague.
Ciolos explained that if this system is to be accepted, “it should not create any distortions and should focus on the same targets as greening in terms of environmental interests”. The Commission therefore considers that the system should be based on an equivalence of “practices”, with the same environment targets that the three greening criteria stipulate. He believes that this focus on the equivalence of practices should help to, “ensure that the system is simple to implement” for member states and farmers.
Whatever the final decision is, all member states will be asking the European Commission to first of all validate (ex ante) the EMA that are recognised as equivalent before farmers begin to apply them. The Danish minister, Mette Gjerskov, warned that, “it will not be possible to launch all the different measures by 1 January 2014”. The Belgian minister, Sabine Laruelle, proposed a procedure that could be followed: initially: the Commission could propose guidelines to member states on the basis of the latter setting out a list of equivalence measures, which would be followed by the Commission validating or not the choices made by the member states, so that farmers could ultimately choose from the measures the measures that suited them best from this list. Germany was particularly keen on this measure and the German agriculture minister, Ilse Aigner, said that, “member states should be able to choose from different options”.
Less-favoured regions: a problem of demarcation. During the Agriculture Council debate on the regulation on rural development in CAP reform, the Cypriot presidency proposed that a region could be considered “less favoured” if 60% of its land fulfilled at least one of the eight biophysical criteria proposed. In its draft reform, the Commission is proposing that this benchmark be set at 66%. Ciolos indicated that he had taken note of this new proposal but warned that this 60% benchmark was in danger of considerably increasing the surface area of the zones suffering from natural handicaps. During the EU27 agriculture ministers' meeting at the end of September, Germany voiced strong opposition to any revision of the system on less-favoured regions.
The Commissioner for agriculture explained that “a very large majority of member states agree that future demarcation should be based on a common framework, consisting of biophysical criteria and a final adjustment system”. He added that, “in September, I already said that I recognise the need for flexibility with regard to transitional provisions and the choice of administrative unity”.
The sugar quotas in question. As part of their discussions on CAP reform, EU agriculture ministers were also divided about the European Commission proposals to end sugar production quotas by 30 September 2015.
This was supported by Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Malta and Latvia, as well as Italy, Ireland and Slovenia.
On the other hand, Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovakia and Lithuania, called for this system to be maintained until 2020.
Poland also called for the system to be maintained, in exchange for a single increase in quotas or 15% or 5% a year over a three-year period. A similar solution was advocated by Romania, with a transition period for increasing quotas from 5% to 10% a year, as well as by Croatia (which will become a member of the European Union on 1 July 2013).
Greece suggested setting up a high-level group to examine measures to apply in the event of quotas being abolished.
Luxembourg and Cyprus adopted an open position.
Ciolos pointed out that abolishing sugar quotas was the next logical step in sector restructuring and described demands to maintain these quotas or increase them as, “bizarre”.
He also noted that abolition of this system was not an ideological question and that a management instrument would remain available for contract systems for beetroot and sugar producers.
He also said that, “there are solid arguments for getting rid of quotas in 2015”.