Dublin, 29/05/2013 (Agence Europe) - The Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU still hopes to be able to broker an inter-institutional agreement by the end of June on the reform of the common agriculture policy (CAP), even though, a month ahead of the deadline, differences of opinion persist on major elements, such as the internal convergence of aid, the upper limit on support, coupled aid (which keep in place a link with the level of production) and measures in favour of the sugar and dairy sectors.
“If the Parliament, Council and Commission show that they are inclined to reach a compromise and show flexibility in a partnership effort to conclude an agreement (…), then we can be in a position to finalise a political agreement at the meeting of the Council” scheduled for 23 to 25 June, said Irish Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney. He called on the institutions to show flexibility in order to facilitate a compromise.
There are, however, still a great many pitfalls, he pointed out, particularly on key measures such as a fairer redistribution of subsidies between farmers (principle of “internal convergence”), the upper limit on aid, aid to young farmers and sugar quotas.
The EP insists on a link between the debates on the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 and those on the reform of the CAP. Coveney explained that there had been discussions on the procedure to be followed if there was not an agreement on the MFF by the end of June, “although I hope that there will be one”. If that should be the case, “then we have some political decisions to make on the reform of the CAP”, he stressed.
Dacian Ciolos, the European Agriculture Commissioner, observed that there had been a break with tradition, due to the mass presence of representatives of the European Parliament (EP) at the informal meeting of Dublin (see EUROPE 10854). He voiced his hopes that this approach would pave the way for an increased inclination on the part of the Council to bear in mind the requests of the EP, as the CAP reform is to be decided upon for the first time under the co-decision procedure. Ciolos said that the discussions at the informal meeting “will help us towards a final political compromise, which I hope will be in place by the end of June”. Describing himself as “optimistic”, the commissioner noted signs of openness on the part of the ministers on many of the subjects under discussion. Over the next few weeks, within the Council's Special Committee on Agriculture, progress can be made in preparing for the June Council. Following the June deadline, a final trialogue with the EP will be needed to enshrine any political agreement reached, a stage which is “essential, even if the EP will not yet be in a position to have a final formal vote on the MAFF”, Ciolos said. Whatever the case may be, the aim is to achieve a political agreement in June, and then to finalise this at the EP and the Council once the MFF has been adopted. In the worst-case scenario, “we will still be able to have an agreement in July”, he said.
Greening. The “greening” of aid, which consists of making 30% of direct agricultural aid conditional upon the farmers observing three environmental measures, was not debated on Tuesday “because we have already made good progress on the subject in the trialogues”, Coveney explained. The question which remains open relates to the sanctions to be applied in the event that farmers fail to respect the greening measures. The minister pointed out that the Council takes the view that greening should be obligatory and, on that basis, has found a compromise which provides for a penalty going beyond simply losing 30% of the payment under greening. The EP is opposed to this penalty above and beyond the loss of the “green” payment. “We will reach a compromise before the end of June”, the Irish minister pledged.
Internal convergence. On Tuesday, a number of countries (Poland, Hungary and Slovenia) said that they would agree to a low convergence threshold, as the Commission would like to see. Other delegations (Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Ireland) criticised the Commission's proposal, on the grounds that transfers of aid which would jeopardise certain sectors should be avoided.
Coupling. A number of countries stressed the importance of being able to continue to pay coupled aid, among them France, Spain and Belgium. Readers may recall that the Council is looking at a maximum coupling of 12% whilst the EP is calling for 15%, plus 3% for protein crops. France, Romania and Finland supported an increase in coupling for protein crops. Germany spoke out against the coupling of aid.
Export refunds. Many countries opposed to the principle of export refunds (such as Denmark, Sweden, Germany and the UK) have accepted a compromise on this point if it can be limited to safety nets. The Netherlands stressed its opposition to export refunds in any form.
Sugar quotas. The differences of opinion on this issue have been confirmed. The Council is in favour of ending quotas in 2017, whereas the EP would prefer 2020. “On the basis of the compromise reached at the Council, we will be able to reach an agreement with the EP”, Ciolos said. The Commission is planning to present a package of measures for the management of crisis situations and to give professional and inter-professional organisations the opportunity to intervene in the event of crisis, thanks to contractualisation systems.
Coveney said that countries such as Portugal, Ireland and Slovenia, which scaled down the size of their sugar industry as a result of the 2006 reform, wish to be able to resume or continue sugar production. Countries which have a strong sugar industry would like to extend the quota period, whilst the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark are in favour of a more liberal approach (free market as soon as possible in order to produce more).
Young farmers. The Council is calling for the regime for young farmers to be voluntary, as a number of countries already have systems in place to encourage young people to get into farming, Coveney pointed out. Some member states are calling for a joint approach across the EU on this issue. The Commission and the EP are calling for this new Community system of support to young farmers to be obligatory. “There is no compromise as yet, but I believe that the member states have shown willingness to examine the issue with greater flexibility than in the past”, Coveney said.
Upper limit. Germany, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Slovakia opposed an obligatory upper limit on aid, referring to the conclusions of the European Council which stipulate that this should be voluntary. France and Germany stated that degressivity had been brought in by the measures for the first 50 hectares (increase in aid for the first 50 hectares, in order to benefit small and medium enterprises). The Commission takes the view that the best thing to do would be to find elements of degressivity, because this principle was not touched upon by the European Council (which talked only of an upper limit on aid). (LC/transl.fl)