The agriculture ministers of a number of EU member states expressed criticism in Luxembourg on Monday 10 October of some simplification measures presented in the omnibus regulation (see EUROPE 11640).
It was mainly on the procedure that problems arose, however. The Slovak Presidency of the Council is planning, at this stage, for the omnibus proposals (which amend the basic acts of the common agricultural policy – CAP – on direct payments, rural development, common organisation of the market and the horizontal regulation), made as part of the mid-term review of the EU 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF), to be discussed by the General Affairs Council and by the friends of the Presidency group.
The agriculture ministers of several countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain) felt that the omnibus proposals should at least be examined by the special committee on agriculture (SCA), which provides the technical level preparation for ministerial debates. Some of these countries even called for the Agriculture Council to put some aspects of the omnibus regulation to the vote.
Presenting the proposal, Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan said that the Commission would like the package of proposals to come into effect on 1 January 2018, for the last three years of the CAP. He said that this ambitious timescale could only be met if the proposals were dealt with as a single package in the legislative procedure. He warned that the agriculture section must not be allowed to delay the whole debate on revising the CAP.
“I understand the Agriculture Council’s desire to be involved in the process. The Council has a free hand in organising its work and the Commission will not interfere in that”, he added. In substance, he stated that the proposals would have a “significant impact on simplifying the CAP”.
The German minister, overall, welcomed the proposals, notably on the flexibility granted on defining “active farmers” and the single audit (to speed up the procedure). “However, in some places, there isn’t the hoped-for simplification”, he said, highlighting the definition of permanent grassland. This point was also made by other countries, including Latvia, Finland and Slovenia. “The possibility of alternating between different crops must not be compromised”, stressed the German minister, pointing to wine-growing. It is difficult to explain to a wine producer that he can no longer plant vines after a break in growing this crop, the Slovenian minister said, too. Hogan stated that the debate on permanent grasslands will take place within the framework of the post-2020 CAP.
Many ministers criticised the proposal to revise the 50%-50% rule (Community participation, national participation) on the contribution by the member states on unrecovered monies of certain agricultural payments. The Commission suggests that the national contribution should rise to 100% but this is not to the liking of many of the agriculture ministers, increasing, as it would, the pressure on national budgets.
Earmarked revenue. Like Portugal and Cyprus, Spanish minister Isabel Garcia Tejerina wanted to know what effect the changes would have on earmarked revenue. “We fear that it might be possible to change where this revenue is used”, possibly outside agriculture, she said. This is an MFF issue which goes beyond the scope of the omnibus regulation. The earmarked revenue has been used to help address the most recent agriculture market crises. “We are afraid that CAP budget margins are used for other purposes.”
France, which shares these concerns, said that the CAP budget “had to be maintained” and argued that re-discussing delegated acts could “re-open a great many (sensitive) debates”.
Hogan tried to reassure the member states on earmarked revenue, stressing that the CAP will still be the main beneficiary of earmarked revenue. Italy called for greater flexibility on instruments to stabilise incomes and manage market crises. Lastly, Denmark wanted to re-open the debate on the funding of the agricultural crisis reserve. “I don’t know if it would be wise to do that, to speak about spending caps”, replied Hogan. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)