Brussels, 06/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - At the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) on Monday 3 June, the Irish Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers gave an overview of talks on reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and suggested options for aspects of the direct payment system currently under debate.
With regard to defining direct payments, several countries (Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, Slovenia, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and others) say that the proposal that permanent pastureland should not be ploughed for seven years (as the EP wants) would be very difficult to monitor in practice and the set-aside for five years, which the Council had agreed on, is plenty long enough. Other countries, like Italy and Austria, would go along with a seven-year limit.
In terms of financial discipline (reducing direct aid when the farm budget is running dry), some delegations (Denmark and Czech Republic in particular) said that they oppose the introduction of a threshold (which is not mentioned in the conclusions document of the European Summit in February 2013), while others (including Italy and Bulgaria) still argue for a €5,000 threshold.
On working farmers, some countries (such as Portugal and Hungary) want as short as possible a negative list by way of compromise. Other countries, like UK, Denmark, Germany and Sweden, call for an optional list (as suggested in the Council of Ministers' negotiating position), even if it is not a long list, pointing out that they don't always have ways of identifying some of the activities on the list. Other countries, like Italy, Czech Republic and Slovakia, are flexible over the list being compulsory or not. Some delegations, Italy and Hungary for example, want game reserves, fishing and fish-farming areas removed from the activities for which payments cannot be made.
On the question of flexibility between the pillars (in other words, transferring funding between direct aid and rural development), several countries want as much flexibility as possible (France, UK, Denmark, Bulgaria, Sweden and Netherlands) and remain sceptical about the new legislation.
In terms of domestic convergence (a new division of aid among farmers in each country), France and Spain, in particular, highlight the importance of diversity in agriculture and say this is a political issue that will be discussed at the upcoming Agriculture Council (24 and 25 June).
For “redistributive payments,” the proposal put in brackets in the new draft compromise fails to satisfy by a number of countries. It suggests 30 hectares (higher aid going to the first 30 hectares) or the average value if it is below 30 hectares, but the critical countries (France, Germany and Belgium in particular) say that the average value needs to be higher.
On the 30% greening of direct aid, Germany, Denmark and United Kingdom, among others, fear that debate will be re-opened, despite the fact that the Council finally managed to reach agreement. Countries like France and Austria suggest introducing a set-rate reduction in agri-environmental measures to include “greening” as a matter of course. Other countries, like Spain and Italy, say that they want land on which crops are permanently grown to be added to the equivalences. On permanent pastureland (greening), several countries, like France, Spain, Greece, Germany, Denmark and Netherlands, say regional or national management of permanently green fields is needed rather than individualised management as laid down in the Council position in March.
When it comes to the aid scheme for young farmers, Denmark, Austria, Estonia and others are still calling for this to be optional. The Czech Republic is being flexible on the matter. Spain and Italy want compulsory application, but might go along with an optional scheme. Several countries, Romania for example, still want compulsory application. In terms of percentages, countries like Spain, Germany, Austria and Czech Republic want a maximum of 2% rather than exactly 2%.
On the question of aid for small farms, some countries (Denmark, Germany and Sweden, for example) are still calling for the scheme to be optional, while other countries (Hungary, Czech Republic and Romania) are prepared to be flexible. Delegations wanting a cap of €1,000 (like the Czech Republic) may be flexible over this, while others, like UK, say the cap should not be any higher than the €1,250 suggested by the Irish Presidency. Austria and Bulgaria are prepared to go along with the €1,500 cap suggested by the EP.
Horizontal Regulation
A number of countries (including Italy, France, Romania and Finland) say that the wording in brackets in the draft compromise would in fact reduce the number of disbursing agencies and want to go back to the Council's position. Other delegations, like Romania and Austria, suggest keeping the disbursing agencies that have already been licensed. On the question of financial discipline, some countries (such as France, Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands) say that the suggested system looks complicated and they therefore recommend that payment be postponed until the following year or years in order to avoid the payment of very small sums of money if the crisis reserve is not used. (LC/transl.fl)