Brussels, 26/04/2013 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 24 April, the European Parliament rapporteurs noted progress in the on-going negotiations between the institutions on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). “The overall result is positive”, said the rapporteur on the direct payments and rural development regulations, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D, Portugal). “The results achieved so far were satisfactory”, said the rapporteur on the single common market organisation (CMO), Michel Dantin (EPP, France). The objective is still to conclude an agreement in June. Since the beginning of the negotiations between the institutions on 11 April, eight trilogues covering the four regulations have taken place. The next, on direct payments, is scheduled for 6 May.
Direct payments. On definitions and the scope of application, “agreement has been reached in principle”, said Capoulas Santos. Disagreement remains on the definitions of grazing land and permanent grassland (the Parliament proposes definitions which are related to measures for the greening of aid). “I think our position will be accepted”, Capoulas Santos said.
On the definition of active farmers, the Council and the Parliament are at odds. The Parliament wants a negative list common to all countries of the EU (which would enable some activities, such as the management of airports, sports fields and leisure areas to be excluded from receiving aid). The Council wants a much more flexible list. “We remain uncompromising”, Capoulas Santos said.
On aid to young farmers, there is still a substantial divergence. The Parliament wants the scheme to be compulsory, and the Council wants it to be optional. The Commission presented a formula for calculating the amount of this aid, which must still be honed, Capoulas Santos said.
On aid to small farmers, “there is a satisfactory basis for agreement, but differences remain on the amounts and on the percentage of the national envelope. However, the negotiations are on the right track. ”
With regard to internal convergence (new distribution of support between farmers within the same country), more discussion is needed. There were moves that brought the parties closer together, but still no agreement.
On the percentages authorised for coupled support, the sides movem closer together but still differences of opinion remain, Capoulas Santos explained.
Rural development. In Capoulas Santos' opinion, the discussions on the areas of natural constraint will be “a big piece. We think that the Commission should make a new proposal at the end of 2014. But the position of the Council has evolved and is getting closer and closer to that of the Commission so we find ourselves isolated on this issue”, he said. The Parliament rejects the Commission's approach (of eliminating new areas according to biophysical criteria).
In another area of disagreement, the Parliament, in order to avoid double payments, wants greening to be the baseline for agro-environmental measures, although the Council opposes this. The Council argues for double payment, but not the Parliament.
The articles covering forests are a very dense issue, with debate on the eligibility of state-owned forests and on the loss of yield. The Council wants to introduce funding for yield loss, but the Parliament and Commission do not agree.
There is an agreement between the institutions on the granting of aid for the creation not only of organisations of producer groups but also for producer organisations. On animal welfare, “we reached an agreement”, Capoulas Santos said.
Single common market organisation (CMO). Not all the issues (including some very sensitive ones) have been tackled yet. On the classification of carcasses, there is a small difficulty to be settled on a category of pig carcass (Italian ham with quality labels). On trade arrangements, problematic areas arise on the issue of absolute reciprocity. The Parliament is firm on this. The Council and Commission are at odds on measures in this area. On the calculation of import duties, the Parliament has agreed to withdraw its amendments on this subject. With regard to entry prices, there is a rather difficult discussion between the Parliament and the Council. The Commission made a compromise proposal that Dantin considers as useful. The Parliament envisages amendments on imports of maize and sorghum for Spain and Portugal (resumption of a treaty), and there was a legal difficulty to maintain this in the CMO. There is an agreement between the Council and the Parliament on hops. On export refunds, the dialogue is “difficult”. The Council wants to maintain all the current arrangements, and does not want to listen to the formula proposed by the Parliament. The Parliament is on the way to obtaining success on the programmes for the distribution of fruit and milk in schools. On the apiculture programme, there are no major difficulties. On the mountain milk programme (requested by the Parliament), “the battle will be tough”, Dantin said.
It is currently the question of Article 43 (3) of the Lisbon Treaty that concerns most MEPs. This article gives the Council the power to adopt, on the Commission's proposal, “the measures relating to the fixing of prices, the deductions, the aid and quantitative limits”. “We will not budge on this issue”, warned the chair of the Parliament's agriculture committee, Paolo De Castro. (LC/transl.fl)