Brussels, 15/03/2013 (Agence Europe) - Ecological focus areas (EFA), one of the three criteria for the greening of direct aid schemes, and conditions of equivalence were at the heart of discussions between member state experts at their meeting on 4 and 5 March within the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA), in order to find a compromise on the chapter relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP). Ireland trusts that the Agriculture Council on 18 and 19 March will adopt a position on the whole of CAP reform (see related article).
The work of the SCA, exceptionally organised over two days in order to make discussions move forward rapidly on CAP reform, revolved around the question of the greening of direct aid. Debates focused on ecological focus areas, one of the three criteria for greening proposed by the European Commission.
The Irish Presidency suggested gradually setting these areas in place: 3% the first year, 5% the second and, possibly, 7% after that further to publication by the European Commission of an environmental impact assessment. A number of member states, including France, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Poland and Germany, nonetheless, said that this percentage was a “political question” that should be resolved at ministerial level.
In addition to surface areas, other aspects of those ecological focus areas need to be specified. In the provisional compromise, the Presidency suggests that set-aside, buffer strips (where there are no fertilisers or pesticides), vines grown on steep slopes and nitrogen-fixing crops (that could therefore include protein crops such as clover and soya) should also be taken into account. The text adds that the member states may decide to add other crops to that list subject to the Commission's approval. For example, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Cyprus would like to include permanent extensive crops, while others would like to include permanent pastureland or hillside orchards.
Another point also must be clarified: weighting factors (how many hectares are equal to a metre of hedge, a tree, etc.). Several delegations - France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Denmark - hope to see these factors included in an appendix to the regulation rather than see the Commission fixing them in a delegated act. Finally, the Irish text adds that member states can decide to implement up to 50% of EFAs at regional level. These surfaces based on collective action between groups of farmers allow the setting in place of adjacent plots.
As regards the two other greening criteria (permanent pastureland and crop diversification), only a few adjustments have been made so far. Farms are dispensed from diversification if they grow fodder or leguminous crops on over 75% of their arable land. In the text currently tabled, Ireland states how the so-called equivalent measures will be recognised: - capitals should draw up a list of “equivalent measures” (i.e. either private measures or national or regional rural development programmes), which will be put to the Commission's approval. Technical work is needed, mainly on the part of the Commission, regarding the development of a comparative database on the mathematical equivalence of measures based on the environmental advantages and impact, the Presidency says.
Double financing - the door is open.
Although, in the compromise text, it is written in black and white that there must not be “double financing” of environmental measures through greening payments and payments from the 2nd pillar (rural development), in reality member states open the door wide to this. Despite opposition from the United Kingdom, a large majority of member states have said they are in favour of greening measures not being a part of the basic line of agri-environmental measures. Ireland has therefore taken up this stance in its compromise - and this is tantamount to authorising double financing.
Finally, as was already the case during the last Agricultural Council, member states are divided over linking 30% of green payments to aid per hectare rather than to the national envelope as initially proposed by the European Commission. Poland, the United Kingdom and Belgium take the view that the same requirements should have the same payments. Discussions will continue unabated over the next few days, and a compromise on the four chapters of reform (direct payments, rural development, CMO and horizontal regulation) is due for 19 March. (LC/transl.jl)