Brussels, 11/04/2013 (Agence Europe) - Now that the Council and Parliament have adopted their position on reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), negotiations can begin with a view to reaching a final compromise by end June or July. The first trialogue was held on Thursday 11 April. There will be 30 such meetings in total on four regulations (direct payments, rural development, common market organisation and horizontal aspects). Debates will be arduous with regard to the internal convergence and capping of direct aid, greening of aid, support measures for young farmers, and market measures (see EUROPE 10813 on Council/EP positions). During a press conference on Thursday, European Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos said that the co-legislators (from the Council and EP) have confirmed the broad guidelines of the initial proposals (October 2011): rebalancing of direct aid (convergence between the countries and within member states); and greening up to 30% of direct payments (support for environmentally-friendly agricultural practices, improvements to the rural development policy and market measures). Nonetheless, the commissioner admitted that there are points still to be clarified in the following areas:
Internal convergence. On this subject - the rebalancing of direct payments to farmers within member states - the Commission calls on the EU to show ambition. The Commission proposes a uniform rate per hectare at national or regional level by 2019, based on the new rights allocated in 2014. The Council agreement leaves member states the possibility to choose an appropriate rate of convergence of direct aid. All payments per hectare below 90% of the national or regional average in 2014 will make up a third of this gap by 2019, with a first stage limited to 10% of the national or regional ceiling. The EP proposes a uniform rate until 2019, with flexibilities for different countries (possibility of limiting losses).
Greening. The Commission is opposed to “green washing” (i.e. the dilution of greening measures). It wants a system that is Europe-wide, one that is simple to apply and control, Ciolos said. The Council has provided flexibility in the system (equivalence of certification regimes, double financing possible with the second rural development pillar, flexibility on crop diversification, permanent pastureland and areas of environmental interest). The EP has also provided for flexibility measures. Differences arise between the two institutions in relation to sanctions in the event of failure to comply with greening measures (the Council's sanctions would be more severe than those of the Parliament) and on double financing (the Commission and the EP being against).
Capping. The EP and the Commission want capping to be compulsory: - capping of farm subsidies at €300,000 per farm and their reduction (degressivity) applying to basic payments above €150,000. The European Council, however, has decided in the compromise on the financial framework 2014-2020 that this capping should be voluntary. Also, in its mandate, the Council defends degressivity applied to the total amount of direct aid (including greening).
Young and small farmers. The Commission continues to defend (as does the EP) a compulsory support scheme for young farmers, while the Council chooses a voluntary system. The Commission also defends a compulsory system for the support of small farmers (up to €1,000), while the Council (between €500 and €1,000) and the EP (between €500 and €1,500) are in favour of a voluntary scheme.
Transparency. The Commission trusts that the Council and EP will confirm that beneficiaries of agricultural aid payments are under a transparency obligation.
Market measures. Again according to Dacian Ciolos, it is necessary to define the arrangements for certain measures (crisis management, strengthened role of producer organisations).
Rural development. The Commission notes that opinions do not differ greatly, although there are still some details to be settled. (LC/transl.jl)