Experts from the EU Member States, who are preparing for the Agriculture Council on 18 March, reiterated on Monday 25 February their differences on several important aspects of the proposal on post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) strategic plans, such as the reduction of payments or coupled support (see EUROPE 12194).
The Commission proposes that payments per farm should be reduced as of €60,000 and capped at €100,000, but with the obligation to deduct labour costs (wages and equivalent for family employment).
The Romanian Presidency of the Council presented to the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) three possible alternatives options for redrafting the proposed Article 15, all of which envisage: - a reduction limited to basic direct payments; - voluntary deduction of labour costs; - exemption from reduction of payments in case a MS already applies a ‘redistributive payment’ (an extra payment for a certain number of hectares per farm), amounting to 10% of its national ceiling (currently 5%). The delegations to the SCA were divided on the different options.
Redistributive payment. The Commission proposes that it become mandatory. The Romanian Presidency presented two alternative options. The first option (maintaining a voluntary redistributive payment) was widely favoured by the Member States.
Coupled support. According to the Commission's proposal, coupled support should be granted only to sectors and farming types undergoing difficulties, therefore exceptionally. Member States should identify these difficulties in their strategic plans.
Most delegations supported the continuation of coupled support, but were divided on the allocation: some countries supported the Commission's proposal to reduce coupled support to 10% of national direct aid, +2% for protein crops (compared to 13% and +2% today); others wanted to maintain the status quo, and one group of countries pushed for an increase.
Rural development. As regards the maximum amount of support for investment, the delegations were divided between those open to the possibility of reducing the maximum rate of support for productive investments, and those in favour of the Commission's proposal (i. e. Member States should limit support to a maximum of 75% of eligible costs). Several delegations called for an extension of the list of investments eligible for increased support (up to 100 per cent), citing in particular: public investments in forest and agricultural infrastructure, non-productive investments (particularly to address climate change), and investments in peripheral areas and young farmers.
With regard to investments in irrigation, most delegations supported the idea of establishing conditions under which such investments may be considered eligible.
With regard to payments for areas subject to natural or specific constraints, the delegations were divided on the need to draw up specific rules for the re-designation of areas subject to natural constraints. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)