Brussels, 29/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament EPP-DE group presented its main guidelines on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to the press last Thursday. The EPP-DE insisted on keeping the three fundamental elements of the sector (single market, Community preference and funding solidarity), independent of the need to set up an economically viable market and a more competitive price policy. Whilst supporting the strengthening of rural development programmes (second pillar), the EPP-DE believes that this development should not be at the detriment of market policies and production (first pillar).
Lutz Goepel (CDU) explained that at least 8 months would be needed for the group to reach a common position, due to the different ideas on the future of the sector. That's why the document contains ideas that are mainly general and can be summarised as such: request for EP co-decision on the key elements of the (CMOs) common market organisations and rural development policy; reduction in competition distortion in the markets with greater use of biomass fuels; quality and security of foodstuffs; adoption of an EU position that goes on "offensive" at the next WTO trade round negotiations (for keeping the multi-functional European agricultural model); respect, in the context of enlargement, for the financial perspectives arrived at in Berlin and the gradual granting of direct financial aid to new Member States. British Conservative, Robert William Sturdy, did not hide the fact that he wanted to see a more ambitious position on opening up the markets to third countries, WTO and enlargement negotiations but welcomed the fact that the EPP-DE had not displayed any protectionist tendencies. French MEP, Joseph Daul (RPR), also stressed the challenges of WTO negotiations as soon as the USA sets up an agricultural policy that goes against European interests. Mr Daul highlighted the ceiling on considerable US aid (USD 275,000 per farmer including an additional USD 50,000 if required).
On the subject of Rural Development Policy (a theme that will be discussed during the revision of CAP half-way through its cycle), the EPP-DE has requested in its document that non-used amounts in the CMOs resulting from direct aid be used to support this policy (in the respect of income for farmers). This text, however, does not mention the different systems that could be used (modulation, ceilings, delinking, co-funding of direct aid) simply because of the different schools of thought on the matter. Encarnacion Redondo Jimenez (Partido Popular - Spain) outlined the dangers that any deviation from the modulation of aid could cause such as, "the fragmentation of farms) especially in a country like Spain. Modulation ought not to become an instrument of certain Member States (those supporting the abolition of the CAP) to "re-nationalise" agricultural aid, she added. Mr Goepel indicated that if the Commission wanted the principle of aid modulation to become compulsory, it should also impose an obligatory co-funding rate. Mr Sturdy pointed out that his country was a far from enthusiastic advocate of co-funding.