Brussels, 13/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on Monday 13 May, the Irish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers sounded out the member states of the EU as to their flexibility regarding certain areas of the reform of the common agriculture policy (CAP), specifically: the definition of active farmers, the aid regime to young farmers and the simplified payment system for small farms. The Presidency's aim is to present revised texts on these three issues in order to facilitate a compromise with the European Parliament by the end of June. At the same time, talks will continue in trialogue on these issues and the others which are still problematic, such as the greening of direct aid, the internal convergence of aid and market measures.
Simon Coveney, Irish Minister for Agriculture, said that by the month of June (at the Agriculture Council intended to finalise its position on the reform), “we are trying to reduce the burden of work and list of outstanding subjects, ahead of a final agreement”. He explained that, at Monday's Council, he had hoped to see a certain amount of give and take on a number of issues. “Many of the delegations have shown flexibility”, Coveney said.
Active farmers. In its position, the Council introduces the opportunity for the countries to exclude certain entities and supplies a negative list (entities which may not benefit from agricultural aid, such as airports and golf clubs) which is optional. The EP is in favour of an obligatory negative list, but on the basis of national criteria. The Commission supports the idea of a negative list. The Irish Presidency has proposed a compromise text which provides for an abridged list which will be obligatory and, on a voluntary basis, countries can opt to add to this abridged list. There would be a baseline common to all, said Coveney. He said that “the reactions have been fairly positive from many member states”. Several countries (Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Sweden, Czech Republic and Estonia) backed the Council's initial approach on Monday, of an optional negative list. France is in favour of a specific negative list and allowing the member states to make additions to it. Poland, Austria and Portugal argued for an obligatory negative list. Belgium, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain and Italy stated that this list could be obligatory. “I feel that we are very close to an agreement”, said Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos. “If we draw up a negative list of common criteria which can be added to at national level, I do not see why this list should be voluntary. Why would it be less relevant to stop paying direct revenue aid to golf clubs or airports in one member state than in another?” he said.
Young farmers. The Commission and the EP are calling for this regime to be obligatory, whereas the Council would prefer it to be optional. The Presidency has not put forward a compromise on this issue. Coveney pointed out that some countries argue that they have no problem attracting young people to the agricultural sector, because they have other incentive measures in place. These countries feel that it is not necessary to reserve a proportion of the direct payments for young farmers.
Most of the agriculture ministers were in favour of an optional regime (Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Cyprus, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovakia).
France took the view that a “European baseline” was necessary, in order to ensure that the regime is not solely voluntary (national flexibility and flexibility between the first and second pillars of the CAP). Luxembourg argued in favour of a community approach and of introducing an obligation to use the first or the second pillar, which may turn out to be a good compromise. Slovenia, Latvia, Bulgaria and Austria said that the system could either be optional or obligatory. Lithuania expressed flexibility on the issue. Portugal called for an obligatory regime and supported the upper limit of 2% of the national envelope (earmarked for this payment).
Small farms. By way of compromise, the Presidency proposed an optional regime in favour of small farms, but up to a maximum of €1,250 per beneficiary (compared to €1,000 wanted by the Council and the 1500 favoured by the EP) and up to a limit of 12.5% of the national envelope (the Council prefers 10% and the EP 15%). Almost all of the countries argued in favour of an optional regime (also supported by the EP). With the exception of Greece and Latvia, all of the member states supported a solely voluntary basis for this system. Differences of opinion came to light on the thresholds, some, such as Spain, feeling that the figure of €1,250 was “reasonable”. Additionally, Belgium, France, United Kingdom and Netherlands agreed that eligible holdings should have to do abide by conditionality criteria.
Ciolos pointed out that the purpose of this measure was to reduce red tape. He therefore cannot understand why the member states are opposed to it being applied uniformly at European level. (LC/transl.fl)