Brussels, 05/12/2014 (Agence Europe) - The European Commissioner for Agriculture, Phil Hogan, has refused to delay by one year (until 2016) the entry into force of the greening of direct aid, in the framework of the reform of the common agriculture policy (CAP).
Greening is an integral part of the new CAP adopted by the European Parliament and the Council and the European Commission are adding all of the clarifications the member states need, so that the mechanism can be set in place in time for the farmers, the Commissioner states in a letter sent on 1 December to four members of the European Parliament, who called upon him to delay the application of greening by one year.
Phil Hogan nonetheless stressed that he is committed to re-examining these measures, particularly the Ecological Focus Areas, after the first year of application. In any case, a deferral of greening would call for the publication of an amendment to the base act of the reform, which would require formal adoption by the Council and the Parliament. Such a process would take too long for it to enter into force in time. He went on to stress that there would be an additional degree of flexibility in the legislation to facilitate the implementation of greening measures. Indeed, the mapping of the Ecological Focus Areas can be carried out up to 2018 and administrative penalties will be phased in over the same period.
The Commissioner goes on to add that in order to take account of the impact of these measures on farmers, “no penalties will be applied for breaches of the greening requirements in the first two years beyond any reduction of the 30% greening payment.”
The member states of the EU had also reported problems in setting greening in place, at an expert meeting held on 17 November, and some of them called for mistakes to be treated with leniency.
Priority on simplification
At an exchange with the members of the committee on agriculture of the EP, Phil Hogan reiterated that simplifying the rules of the CAP would be one of the immediate priorities as he takes up his duties. However, he told the MEPs, “we must make sure that we do not change the rules too often and, in particular, before they have even been applied”. He also warned that “our simplification actions should focus on elements which can be changed in the framework of the current policy. Farmers need predictability!” This simplification, therefore, will not be a “big bang”, but a “steady stream of small and large actions aiming to make life easier for farmers and other operators”. The Commission is planning to look at the rules which can be simplified under the Common Market Organisation, geographical indications and the direct payment mechanism. The Parliament and the Council will also be consulted to identify the sticking points. The application of the Ecological Focus Areas will of course be analysed, but “I do not think that we should stop there”, said Phil Hogan. “We should take the opportunity to simplify the other rules under the new direct payments regime as well, as long as we do not end up reopening the political decisions underlying the reform”.
Rural development. On 3 December, Phil Hogan said that his services had so far received 16 of the 118 national and regional rural development programmes to be submitted by the member states for the period 2014-2020 and that around 80 letters of observation had been sent to the management authorities. Eight programmes can be adopted by the Commission by the end of this year, said Phil Hogan. Between 13 and 15 of them can be approved by the end of March next year, which will qualify them for the carryover procedure for the funds unused in 2014. The rest of the programmes, on the other hand, will be approved during the second quarter of 2015.
16 out of the 28 member states have drafted rural development programmes for the period 2014-2020 which do not make a significant contribution to preserving the environment, according to the NGOs Birdlife Europe and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) in a letter dated 27 November. Many member states are planning to use rural development to shore up intensive animal rearing systems, the NGOs lament. They regret the lack of support to preserving biodiversity and the absence of guarantees to ensure that investments in irrigation systems do not harm the environment. The NGOs argue that the rural development programmes are now the only instrument of the CAP able to limit the negative impact of farming on the environment. (LC)