Dublin, 27/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos said in Dublin on Sunday 27 May that, in common agricultural policy (CAP) reform, progress had recently been made in the greening of direct aid. Nonetheless, he did indicate that the Council should be prepared to shift on the issue of internal direct payment convergence (fairer distribution of aid between farmers in all EU countries).
At a press conference at the end of the afternoon on Sunday, the commissioner declared that the informal Agriculture Council meeting in Dublin on 27-29 May had provided a good opportunity for preparing the political agreement in June (on CAP reform) and that “we are getting closer and closer to the end of the process of negotiating CAP reform”. He said that “from our recent discussions in Council, it's not clear that all Ministers have really grasped the fact that we are in co-decision and that the Presidency needs a flexible mandate in order to be able to negotiate in the trilogues”. He added that, “if the Presidency does not have this margin of flexibility, we risk not making progress, or that the other two institutions advance faster on some issues, leaving the Council isolated on certain issues”.
Greening of aid. Arrangements for the greening of aid (30% of direct payments in future will be linked to farmers respecting 3 basic measures - the maintenance of permanent pasture; crop diversity and managing 7% of the holding area as an ecological focus area or EFA) represent an example of the progress recently achieved during the trilogues between institutions, Ciolos stated. He went on: “We now have the main elements to find our landing zone” particularly with equivalency measures and that, after the most recent trilogies, I am optimistic that agreement is within sight”.
In his replies to questions from the press, he added that “I think we are close to a good agreement insofar as equivalency can be envisaged for certain agri-environmental measures”. The Commission presented a long and clear list of agri-environmental measures that can be considered as equivalent to the measures envisaged for greening aid under the first pillar (direct aid and market spending). They include, for example, crop rotation (allowing for crop diversification) and crops that require little or no pesticides (such as oilseed and hemp). The commissioner explained that this would involve implementing agri-environmental measures that had an obvious link with soil fertility, biodiversity and water management.
One of the most controversial issues involves double funding. To prevent this arising, the commissioner believes that what must be done is to “calculate an amount to be deducted from the payments in the 2nd pillar in order to avoid paying farmers twice for equivalent measures”.
Internal convergence. The Commission is prepared to demonstrate greater flexibility but is demanding (and according to Commissioner Ciolos, this is not negotiable) a minimum threshold for internal convergence. The EP is calling for a minimum level of 75%, which the Commission does not have a problem with but this is not the case for some EU countries, such as Ireland, which chaired the discussions. Solutions appear to have been found with regard to Spanish concerns on this matter (major differences between the smallest and biggest amount of aid), particularly through agronomic regionalisation.
Sugar. The EP has a hard line on the single common market organisation (CMO) and “we must find a way to accommodate this without undermining the market orientation of the CAP”. On crisis management, there is a willingness to discuss the different mechanisms. The commissioner explained that “it's similar on sugar - we want a clear date for the end of the quota regime. [The Commission says 2015, the Council 2017 and the EP 2020.] I think we can find an agreement around this date put forward by the Council, and I have understood that the EP is ready to move if we can accommodate some of their ideas on the instruments for producer/inter-professional organisations in the sugar sector, e.g. for crisis management and for a contract system to provide stability and certain perspectives for the producers and sugar beet processors”.
Milk. The EP proposed an incentive (through aid) for producers to voluntarily reduce their milk production in the event of crisis but the Council (particularly Germany) does not want this. The Commission analysed this measure and concluded that the measure would not be very efficient on the ground in the event of crisis, while the budgetary costs for such a measure would be high, explained Ciolos. He is prepared to discuss instruments for resolving certain situations when quotas are ended (in 2015). The commissioner said that a major conference on the milk sector would take place in September to see whether ideas emerge and, if “good instruments are identified, I would be prepared to analyse them and put forward proposals”.
Rural development. Ciolos said that things seem to be advancing well and that the outstanding issue is the new definition of less favoured areas using biophysical criteria. He explained that “here I feel that the Council is not far from the Commission”. The Commission's idea is that “with some elements of flexibility in the calculation and utilisation of these criteria, and with the proposed possibility of leaving it to member states to use their own criteria to define up to 10% of national area as such areas”.
The EP wants compulsory capping and degressivity. The commissioner said that he could understand why the Council was reluctant to shift on the question of capping, given the position of EU leaders on the 2014-2020 financial framework but he believes that a compromise is possible with regard to degressivity because the European Council agreement does not mention this term. (LC/transl.fl)