Brussels, 23/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - Concluding the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is imminent. The Council, however, still has to shift a little in the direction of the European Parliament's line if the final elements in the package from 26 June are to be concluded. These include subjects related to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020: the phasing out of direct aid and flexibility between the first pillar (direct aid) and the second pillar in CAP (rural development).
During the Council on Monday 23 September, Vigilijus Jukna, the Lithuanian Minister for Agriculture, called on all the different stakeholders to make a little more effort to conclude the agreement on CAP reform. He emphasised the fact that the Parliament had already demonstrated flexibility during the trilogue on 17 September but highlighted the very limited margin of flexibility it had because the Council's mandate at the end of June had been a long fought struggle. The Lithuanian presidency does not intend to reopen political discussions on the main elements in the CAP, he explained.
On Monday, ministers meeting for a late working lunch (2.30pm) mentioned possible adjustments being made at the end of the mandate in an effort to conclude negotiations with the EP on MFF related subjects. A Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) was expected to take place late afternoon on Monday to make the Council's position official in view of the final trilogue planned four Tuesday 24 September at around 7.00pm, but this was cancelled at the last minute.
During the Council, before lunch, the presidency informed ministers about the results of the 17 September trilogue (see EUROPE 10924).
Phasing out. On 17 September, the Parliament proposed a direct payments reduction rate of 5% to be applied to annual amounts of support worth €150,000 (the Council is proposing the same figure); but the Parliament proposed a 10% rate to apply to amounts of over €300,000. This second figure, however, is not included in the Council's mandate. Everything suggests that the final deal may mean the ruling out of a second amount and increasing the phasing out rate on amounts worth €150,000 or more to 6 or 7%. The countries with the most misgivings about the idea of increasing the phasing out rates are Germany, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic. A derogation is, however, planned whereby phasing out would not be applied when a certain “redistributive” payment level is used (bonus for the first hectares). The Parliament is proposing that countries be exempt from phasing out if they introduce a “redistributive” payment worth 10% of the national envelope in direct payments (as opposed to the 5% in the Council's mandate). This derogation would mean that Germany would not be affected by phasing out.
Flexibility between pillars. The Council is looking at the possibility of countries transferring 25% of funding from the second pillar (rural development) to the first pillar (direct aid) if they receive an amount of aid below the EU average and 15% for those that are above the average. The Parliament proposed 15% for countries that are below the EU average and 5% for the others. The Council is not expected to shift on these percentages but perhaps would do if certain derogations were included.
Co-funding rates for rural development. The Parliament would like to shift from 75 to 85% of Community co-funding for rural development programmes in less developed and outermost regions and the small islands in the Aegean Sea.
A “slightly adapted” mandate. During the Council, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Dacian Ciolos, stated that no- one wanted to reopen the political agreement reached at the end of June. Nonetheless, he did point out that the two co-legislators had reached an agreement on clarifying the final questions pending, namely those related to financial perspectives. The Commissioner hammered home the fact that, “the overall agreement and legislative texts are much more important than this or that figure”. He added that, “if the final decision is blocked on the legislative texts due to a certain figure, European farmers will lose a lot more than if we agreed to discuss and modify one or other figure”. He said that he hoped that the final “slightly adapted” mandate would be granted to the presidency for concluding this discussion, and in his speech to ministers he concluded that, “I cannot imagine anything other than an agreement during the Tuesday trilogue”. He also emphasised the need for everyone to assume their respective responsibilities.
Negative consequences of delay. If there is no agreement within the week, the Parliament agriculture committee will vote on 30 September on whether to approve the 26 June political agreement on the four regulations (direct payments, rural development, horizontal regulation and common market organisation), MFF-related items excepted. On these latter points, the agriculture committee will take back the March mandate if there is no agreement, meaning that a first reading agreement will not be possible. A second reading will delay the final deal by around six months. If a full agreement is not reached swiftly, the legal texts will not be able to be adopted until the end of the year. Further, the EU institutions will not be able to agree on the legislative text on interim measures. Without an agreement on transition measures, it will not be possible to make some CAP payments as there will not be the necessary legal basis, said Ciolos at a press conference. “I will do all in my power to make sure that doesn't happen”, he promised.
The Irish minister, Simon Coveney, largely thanks to whom the June agreement was reached, underlined on his arrival at the Council meeting on Monday that the room for manoeuvre, in terms of ministerial concessions, is limited. He said, however, that he was confident that the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of Ministers would be able to put things in place by the end of next week or shortly after.
“We aren't looking for a fight” with the European Parliament, stated the Spanish minister Miguel Arias Canete, calling for “the right balance” to be found. (LC/transl.fl)