Brussels, 04/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament is beginning to lose patience because it believes that the Council is not really negotiating a number of important issues included in common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. It is calling for progress to be made in the current trialogues, before the Agricultural Council at the end of June (24-25-26 June).
Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy), the chair of the EP's agricultural committee, declared that “we want the negotiating brief on CAP reform adopted at the March plenary to be respected and taken into consideration by the Council and Commission”. The EP cannot wait until the last week of the Irish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers (at the end of June) to reach an agreement on CAP reform. De Castro said that it wanted agreements to be concluded in the trialogues taking place now and over the next few days. He added: “We cannot wait until the last night of the Agriculture Council to reach an agreement. This working method is impossible”.
The EP wants to discuss all the different points, De Castro went on, including those contained in the February European Council agreement on the 2014-2020 multi-annual financial framework: caps on aid, the amount of financial resources for the first pillar of the CAP (direct aid and market spending) and the second (rural development) and the transfer of resources between the first and second pillars. He said that “for us, all subjects are covered by co-decision and the EP intends to examine them all”. De Castro warned that “no agreement on the CAP can be concluded if we do not get an agreement on the full and comprehensive application of the Lisbon Treaty” (alignment of CAP legislation on this treaty). He also explained that discussions had taken place on this point but, “until now, no agreement has been obtained”. The EP is prepared to organise trialogues every day if necessary, even in the last week of June, to finalise the agreement. De Castro concluded that “postponing everything to the last week of the Irish Presidency would make any conclusion of an agreement difficult”.
In his reply to questions put to him, De Castro called for the great majority of issues, 80 or 90% of them, to be settled before the last week of June and pointed out that a majority in plenary session had to be found.
Luis Capoulas Santos (S&D, Portugal), the rapporteur on direct payments and rural development said that that the EP could not be held responsible for any possible failure to conclude an agreement on CAP reform. In a reference to the subjects already tackled by the European Council (external convergence, capping, the transfer of funds between pillars) he said: “We have been flexible and demonstrated a spirit of compromise on a number of questions. Moreover, we observe that the Council has been completely rigid). He also said that it was “unacceptable” that the Council should not consider external convergence, capping and the transfer of funds between pillars as “sacred”. Capoulas Santos conceded that progress had been achieved during the trialogues in many areas, with clear indications of possible compromise on direct payments, active farmers, assistance to small farms and young farmers, as well as greening. He also noted progress on internal convergence and “redistributive payments”, the transition regime up until 2020 for single area payment schemes (SAPS) and coupled payments. On the question of rural development, there is still the problem of defining zones subject to natural restrictions. The rapporteur suggested to the Council that there should not be any taboo subjects.
Capoulas Santos was pleased that the Council might finally agree to there being no double payments (greening in addition to agri-environmental measures).
On the issue of rural development, the EP has received the figures on redistributing the funds for each country resulting from the European Council decisions on the 2014-2020 framework (see EUROPE 10858) but it also asks what calculating method and criteria were used to obtain these figures. The rapporteur warned that “without these criteria, we will not be able to discuss the figures”. Capoulas Santos said that a compromise had to be found on the percentage of coupled aid (the EP is demanding a maximum of 15% and the Council 12%).
No sign of a compromise on milk
Michel Dantin (EPP, France), the rapporteur on the common market organisation (CMO) stated that, on all the political subjects in this chapter of the reform, “everything has been sent back”. He also declared that “it is time that the politicians in the different bodies assume their responsibilities. We need real negotiations, people with clear mandates that can win points and accept concessions”. Dantin said that the EP wanted to give producers responsibility for organising themselves, adaptation to the margins contained in competition law and clear action tools for strengthening this producer organisation. He concluded that “we do not want to sacrifice the choices made by the EP”.
Sugar. Dantin said that “negotiations have progressed well. We agree on the architecture for frameworks of action in the quota and post-quota regimes. Finalising the wording for these frameworks still needs to be done and we need to reach an agreement on the possible date for changing the system”. The EP wants to extend quotas until 2020, while the Council thinks that 2017 would be more appropriate.
On the issue of milk, the EP, through its vote, has said that the milk package (negotiated in 2012), was a factor in the post-quota chapter but that it was not enough to ensure “a soft landing”. Dantin indicated that “today, there are no indications to suggest that there is any sign of an agreement being obtained in the trialogues”.
Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), rapporteur on the horizontal regulation said that the EP is genuinely prepared to discuss everything and modify its mandate in an effort to meet the wishes of the Council. Nonetheless, he deplored the fact that the Council did not appear willing to budge at all. The controversial subjects he highlighted included the number of payment agencies, the warning system and penalties for not respecting rules on greening direct aid. (LC/transl.fl)