Brussels, 19/03/2013 (Agence Europe) - European Union agriculture ministers began a marathon meeting on Tuesday 19 March to seek to reach a general approach on common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. The second text of the compromise, on which the Council worked all afternoon Tuesday, comprised a number of proposals likely to meet with the satisfaction of a large number of countries on the greening of aid, aid that maintains a link with the level of production (so-called coupled aid), and extension until 2020 of the single area payment scheme (SAPS) enjoyed by the new EU member states.
Below is a summary of the main elements of the Presidency's compromise (No 2).
Direct payments. The Commission criticises the text of the compromise that envisages review, in 2018, of the provisions on the transfer of funds between the first (direct aid) and second (rural development) pillars (and vice versa). On the subject of financial discipline (aid reduction, mainly for financing the reserve for managing farming crises), the initial proposal provided that the principle should not apply to farms receiving under €5,000. The European Council (financial framework agreement 2014-2020) has not provided for any exemptions. The compromise focuses on an exemption for farmers receiving under €2000. The aid regime for young farmers would be voluntary, although the European Commission would like it to be compulsory. On the subject of active farmers, the Commission notes progress made in the text towards setting up a negative list of places or establishments that cannot benefit from agricultural subsidies.
SAPS. The Presidency grants the request of the new member states by allowing them to extend their single area payment scheme until 31 December 2020 at the latest (rather than 31 December 2017, as in the previous text). This is a “transitional scheme”, the Presidency underlines.
Greening. Whereas the previous compromise took up the Parliament's position on areas of special ecological interest (3%, 5% then 7% being reserved for these areas in a farm), the new Presidency text focuses on two stages and not three as previously: 5% the first year and 7% after a Commission impact assessment study. The maximum number of trees per hectare goes from 50 to 250 (at the request from Sweden) in areas of special ecological interest. Permanent pastureland on slopes of at least 10° are considered as areas of ecological interest.
Provisions will take into account the positive role of forests with regard to biodiversity.
Penalties for failing to carry out greening: farmers that do not abide by the greening measures will lose the green payment (30% of aid) and will also be fined 25% of that green payment amount (which makes a penalty of 125% of the green payment).
Voluntary coupled aid. The compromise provides for an increase in coupled aid (aid that keeps a link between the amounts and levels of production). It suggests that such payments be limited to 7% (compared to 5% in the initial proposal) of the national envelope when the member state provides 0 to 5% of coupled support, or a maximum of 12% (10% in the Commission proposal) when the existing level of coupled support is above 5%. Aid coupling of 15% was requested in particular by France, Spain, Poland, Cyprus and Italy.
Sugar. The Presidency has proposed renewal until 2017 (2016/2017 harvest year) of the sugar quota system (the Commission proposed keeping quotas until 2015). At the request of France and Germany, the Presidency has done away with the paragraph allowing free redistribution of sugar quotas (a measure requested by Ireland and Portugal in particular).
Wine. A scheme for authorising new plantations is provided for from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2024, with mid-term revision. The safeguard mechanism provides for new surface areas not to exceed 1% (a figure still under debate) of the national surface area.
Other sectors. On fruit and vegetables, there will be extension of aid to operational funds for producer organisation associations. Support for the hop sector is to be maintained.
Rural development. In less favoured areas, member states would, the compromise text states, have 20% flexibility for the setting in place of biophysical criteria. There will be gradual loss of aid for those that are excluded from the aid regime for disadvantaged areas. (LC/transl.jl)