Brussels, 17/04/2013 (Agence Europe) - EU experts meeting on Monday 15 April within the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) took stock of the first trilogues held last week on reform of common agricultural policy (CAP). They noted that some progress had been made on direct payments and market-related measures.
The first main topic discussed at the trilogue on 11 April was that of direct payments.
Fields of application and definition. The Irish Presidency of the EU Council noted that significant progress had been made with regard to scope. For example, the requestfrom the European Parliament (EP) on support for agriculture will be taken into account in the single common market organisation (CMO).
Regarding definitions, points already agreed upon were considered as well as other items still being thrashed out: 1) the EP, backed by the Commission, hopes to include in the definition of farming activity a specific reference to the minimum density factor; 2) EP and Council agree to extend the definition of permanent grassland in order to cover everything that is currently eligible as permanent pasture (a common technical solution is to be found). On the other hand, the EP insists upon including in the definition a ban on seven-year ploughing, while the Council prefers to ensure that permanent pasture is excluded from rotation (discussion in the context of aid greening); and 3) the Council's suggestion to exclude crops grown in greenhouses from eligibility is not supported by the EP (which sees this as possible discrimination) and the Commission (risk of WTO problems). The Commission will be proposing a solution.
Notion of active farmer. There is a resolve on the part of the EP and Council to rule out beneficiaries that are marginally involved in agricultural production. Agreement has been reached on: - a compulsory common criterion at EU level on the requirement for minimum activity on farmland that is maintained in good farming condition: - suppression of the 5% cap on non-agricultural income (the Commission proposed to rule out farmers whose agricultural income was under 5% of non-agricultural income). On the subject of drawing up a negative list of activities allowing potential beneficiaries to be excluded, the EP wants a compulsory list while the Council considers such a list should be optional.
Aid to young farmers. The Council wants this scheme to be voluntary while the EP and Commission argue in favour of a compulsory scheme. This political issue will be discussed at a later date. When it comes to implementation, the EP hopes to clarify the method of calculation suggested by the Council. This should improve the predictability of annual payments to young farmers (the calculation of an amount applying just once for the whole period). The Council will be presenting a simulation of the calculation.
Furthermore, the EP has called for more explanation on the alternative method of a lump payment per farm proposed by the Council (while the Commission fears this could cause discrimination between young farmers from different EU countries).
EP and Council could agree on a maximum limit for surfaces eligible for a “top-up” for young farmers (the EP proposing 100 hectares while the Council does not set a limit), as well as on a minimum limit (with the Council suggesting 25 hectares).
EP and Council agree on the possibility for countries to fix additional criteria that young farmers should comply with in order to benefit from the scheme.
Aid to small farmers. EP and Council recommend a voluntary scheme, while the Commission believes it should be compulsory. The EP might follow along the lines of the Council, which hopes that there will be no automatic implementation of the scheme below a certain threshold of payment rights. The EP would be open to proposal as regards the threshold to be set below which there can be access to the scheme, with a maximum 1% of the national ceiling being devoted to the scheme. The EP is calling for €1,500 and 15% of the national ceiling but could agree to €1,250 and 12.5%.
Single CMO. The other issue discussed at the trilogue related to the classification of carcasses, trade provisions and general provisions. The Presidency observed that significant progress had been made although some technical points have still to be resolved especially on the classification of carcasses. When it comes to trade mechanisms, the EP defended its amendment providing for export refunds to be maintained but limiting them to exceptional situations. The Council, on the other hand, is keener to keep the status quo (cap on refunds). Debates on this theme will continue during a trilogue at a later date.
The prerogatives of the Council (Art.43.3 of the treaty) are the cause of major divergence between Council and EP (the matter is to be discussed later).
Adjustment to direct payments. The Presidency presented a document containing updated amounts to be included in certain annexes of the regulation on direct payments. Updating takes into account the conclusions of the European Council on 8 February on the financial framework for 2014-2020. This concerns Article 44 (base areas, fixed yield and reference amounts), as well as several annexes on national ceilings. Many countries asked at the SCA for clarification on the method of calculation used. Several member states (France, Italy, Poland, UK, Denmark to name but a few) said the date of implementation of Article 11 on aid capping (August 2013) was too close to be realistic. The Presidency confirmed that the dates of the texts are to be reviewed. (LC/transl.jl)