Brussels, 19/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - In anticipation of next week's final discussions at the Council on the reform of the common agriculture policy (CAP), the Irish Presidency of the Council of Ministers has presented amended texts on the plank concerning the greening of aid. These suggestions received a mixed reception at the special committee on agriculture (SCA) of Monday 17 June. However, the Council and the EP are close to an agreement on this issue (see EUROPE 10869): granting the farmer 30% of the direct payment in return for respecting certain agricultural practices which are beneficial for the climate and the environment. Readers may recall that the criteria to be observed are: diversification of crops, keeping permanent grassland and ecological focus areas.
The Presidency's document proposes a rewording of Articles 29 and 31 of the regulation on direct payments and two appendices: a list of agro-environmental and climate measures recognised as equivalent (such as crop rotation, the management of pastureland, etc) and a weighting matrix for the ecological focus areas (EFA).
For Article 29, the Presidency proposes replacing the open definition (laid down in the Council's general approach of March of this year) with a list of measures recognised as equivalent to or more effective than the three practices proposed for greening. It would then no longer be necessary to implement a complex approval procedure for these equivalences. A further provision allows the Commission to add provisions to this list by means of delegated acts.
At the SCA, certain countries, including Italy, Spain, Greece, the United Kingdom and Denmark, noted that the new wording of Article 29 would mean that greening would apply to all eligible hectares, even though it should apply only to those which receive rights (in line with the Council's approach of March). A number of delegations (Spain, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Finland and Belgium) argued that a closed list (even though it can still be changed by the Commission) is less flexible and that the countries should be able to add to the list if they need to.
The new wording of Article 31 on permanent pastureland gave rise to considerable misgivings, particularly from Germany, Finland, France, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Slovakia and Luxembourg. These countries stressed that the determination of the areas in question should be done at national or regional level (but not at farm level). They suggest reverting to the Council's text in the general approach.
The weighting grid for ecological focus areas went down well with most of the delegations, particularly as it is voluntary. However, a number of delegations, such as Italy and the Czech Republic, take the view that certain technical aspects should be reviewed.
The Presidency's text also deals with the issue of double funding. The Irish Presidency notes that the Council is isolated on the first pillar (direct aid) and second pillar (rural development) double funding of the greening measures. For this reason, it suggests making a concession towards the EP and the Commission (which are opposed to double funding) on this issue and proposes two options:
1. application of a standard reduction rate of the second pillar payments on a limited number of greening-equivalent measures. For the remaining measures which go beyond the requirements of the greening practices (not bringing about a reduction of the second pillar payment), the farmer would receive the direct payments and those under the second pillar. Under this option, greening would remain outside the second pillar baseline.
2. inclusion of greening in the second pillar baseline, but with an assurance that only the measures which go beyond greening requirements would be included in the rural development programmes.
As regards the options put forward for greening and whether or not this should be included in the baseline (second pillar), many countries (including France, Germany and the United Kingdom) wanted, at this stage, to reserve their position, but stressed that the options presented may offer a solution if the implications are expressed in precise figures and the option selected is practicable. (LC/transl.fl)