Luxembourg/Brussels, 26/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels on Wednesday 26 June, the EU institutions finalised the political agreement on the reform of the common agriculture policy (CAP). A greener and fairer CAP, which will make it possible to regulate production, will be set in place from 2014 (2015 for most provisions, notably direct aid).
At around midnight on Wednesday in Luxembourg, the Council agreed on a revised mandate to negotiate the last remaining controversial issues with the Parliament (upper limit and degressivity of direct aid, milk, sugar and powers of the EP and of the Council, cross-cutting regulation, including sanctions in the event of failure to abide by the greening measures). Only Germany and the United Kingdom abstained on the revised mandate concerning the common market organisation (CMO) regulation. The institutions put the finishing touches to these subjects at a trialogue held in Brussels on Wednesday morning and then, during the afternoon, the agriculture committee of the European Parliament (EP) enshrined the agreement on the four regulations reforming the CAP (direct payments, rural development, CMO and cross-cutting regulation).
As things turned out, during the trialogue on Wednesday morning, the Presidency ofn the Council of Ministers stuck to the revised mandate on all points and therefore offered the EP which, to some extent, had a gun to its head, no concessions. The EP recognised that it had secured sufficient progress at the trialogue meetings on Monday. Agricultural issues with a link to the multi-annual financial framework (MAFF) 2014-2020 were not discussed. The Presidency presented a possible area for compromise on degressivity (5% reduction in aid from €150,000).
On sugar, an end to production quotas is planned for 2017, as called for by the Council in March of this year (the EP tried for the end of 2018, but several EU countries were opposed to this). No concessions have been offered to the EP on milk.
As regards the powers of the EP and of the Council on the CMO, no changes have been made from the Presidency's suggestion: Article 43 (2) (providing for EP-Council co-decision) only on reference prices and the opening of intervention prices for the beef and veal sector. On the other CMO measures, authority goes to the Council (setting public intervention or private storage aid, level of aid for distribution programmes for fruit and milk in schools, export refunds, etc).
Here are the details of the main planks of the new CAP post-2013 (most measures will apply in 2015).
Internal convergence. The aim of this must be to ensure, by 2019, that each farmer receives a direct payment at least equal to 60% of the national or regional average. Conversely, better-of farmers should not lose more than 30% of their payment. This convergence would be facilitated by the payment of a “redistributive” payment (additional payment for the first hectares) for the first 30 hectares or for the average surface area of the country's holdings, if this is higher (making at least 50 ha possible in France, for example).
Young farmers. Topped-up direct aid (25% increase in the payment for five years) in favour of young farmers will be obligatory. Up to 2% of the national envelope of direct payments must be earmarked for this measure.
Smallholdings. The simplified regime for smallholdings (which receive less than €1,250) will be optional. The maximum envelope earmarked for this support must not exceed 10% of total direct payments.
Active farmers. The text lays down a short but obligatory negative list of activities considered as non-agricultural (airports, railway services, land used for sports or recreational activities). Each country will have the option of adding to the list.
Greening. 30% of the total direct aid must fulfil three measures favourable to the climate and the environment: presence of area of ecological interest, diversity of crops and keeping permanent pasture land. Greening will apply to holdings of more than 10 ha. The percentage of area of ecological interest will be 5% from 2015 and then 7% in 2017, on the basis of the Commission proposal. It will be the responsibility of the European Commission to draw up the matrix used to define the equivalence between features of the area (trees, hedges etc) and the areas of ecological interest (delegated acts). The areas of ecological interest will apply only to arable land (not to vineyards, crops under water and fruit tree crops).
As regards the issue of double funding, the Commission is proposing to draw up a list of measures which could be funded twice (under agri-environmental measures and under greening). These measures would no longer be funded by rural development, but by the 30% under the green payment.
Coupled aid. Coupled aid can represent 8% of the envelope of the member states which no longer practise this mode of support, and 13% for those which currently apply it, then 2% for protein crops in both cases. There is a Commission declaration on sectors which are not eligible for coupled payments.
Wine. The application period for the new system of planting authorisation will run from 2016 to 2030 and the maximum increase of surface area will be 1% a year.
Rural development. 30% of the funds will be earmarked for environmental protection measures (water, soil, biodiversity etc) and the fight against climate change. This 30% includes aid to natural constraint areas, as of 2018.
MEPs lament absence of agreement on MAFF-related issues
At the extraordinary meeting of the committee on agriculture of the EP, which ended up enshrining the compromise reached, the chairman of this committee, Paolo de Castro (S&D, Italy), admitted that certain subjects were not negotiated as the Council had no mandate. These are the issues related to the multi-annual financial framework of the EU for 2014-2020 (upper limits, degressivity of aid, transfers between pillars).
“We honoured the EP's mandate, which was almost fully respected”, said the rapporteur on rural development and direct payments, Luis Capoulas Santos (S&D, Portugal). He also lamented the fact that the negotiators had not been able to conclude fully as the Presidency had no mandate on the agricultural issues with the link to the MAFF. However, he welcomed the compromise reached on the texts which will, he explained, allow farmers to develop their activities whilst being able to take account of environmental concerns. “We have not swept the greening of aid aside”, he said.
Michel Dantin (EPP, France), the rapporteur on the CMO, said, amongst other things, that “our fight” has been to buoy up producer organisations.
Simon Coveney, the Irish Minister for Agriculture, told the MEPs that work in recent months has been informed by the desire to conclude, as agriculture and the agri-food sector are important sectors. “We have struck a balance on internal convergence, the coupling of aid, milk, wine and sugar… even though the countries had different priorities”, he stressed. Greening, he explained, has been the main political paradigm change of the CAP. The EP has been able to make its mark on the reform, he observed.
Dacian Ciolos, European Commissioner for Agriculture, said that “we have succeeded in taking on board the diversity of EU agriculture thanks to the flexibility and options made available”. Amongst other things, he welcomed “more targeted, fairer and greener” payments. He said that he was very proud of compulsory aid for young farmers under the first pillar (direct aid and market expenditure). “We have found a model of greening which does not penalise those who are already doing a lot for the environment in agricultural production”, said the commissioner. Some NGOs, among them WWF, are disappointed at the compromise reached. WWF argues that the agreement will undermine good farming practices and will continue the decline of environmental quality in rural areas.
Ciolos stated that “we have been able to keep the CAP oriented towards the market, reducing the role of the public authorities and rigid bureaucratic intervention in market management. We have strengthened the role of the farmers and their professional organisations in the management of the markets, in practically all sensitive sectors”. He also welcomed the reinforcement of the crisis management mechanisms.
Speaking on behalf of the EPP, German MEP Albert Dess said that he was “satisfied” with the compromise. “We will have to make do with what we have got”, he added. Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos confirmed that the Social Democrats Group was able to accept the compromise. On behalf of the ALDE group, George Lyon lamented the fact that the Council had chosen not to negotiate the MAFF subjects, describing this as a “slap in the face” for the EP. “Will this agreement prove an incentive to produce more whilst taking account of natural resources? The answer is yes”, he said. The Greens/EFA Group was satisfied with the results on the second pillar (rural development) and on coupled aid for protein plants (+2%), but disappointed on milk and optional aid to smallholdings. José Bové (Greens/EFA, France) said: “I am sad, the planned CAP reform has unravelled, it will be the Council's fault if the CAP is re-nationalised”. The GUE/NGL said that the results will be evaluated by the farmers and lamented the lack of equity between farmers as regards first pillar issues.
This agreement “will put an end to the uncertainty facing European farmers and will allow them to carry out their investment projects. But, facing increasingly present challenges such as growing food demand, which is set to increase by 70% by 2050, we lament the fact that they did not go further to reinforce the economic role of farmers and agricultural cooperatives which produce quality foodstuffs”, said the presidents of COPA and COGECA. (LC/transl.fl)