Brussels, 28/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - During the Agriculture Council on 27 May, Commissioner Franz Fischler announced that the report on the amendment proposals for the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), would at best be out by 10 July (the date had originally been set for 18 June). This date has been chosen in order to take into account the affects of the new US "Farm Bill" on prices in the world markets, notably that of cereals. Mr Fischler asserted, however, that this evaluation, which will be made in light of a report by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute - FAPRI), would not change the intention of the Commission concerning amendment of certain CAP provisions. Mr Fischler said a mid-term review, without at first having any idea about the affects of the Farm Bill on the world and European markets would be a risky manoeuvre. He also explained that FAPRI studies had in the past determined the main Agenda 2000 guidelines. Any criticism of their adopting these proposals was therefore not valid without first having taken care of getting to know the development of the world markets, especially in the cereals markets, the Commissioner explained. He also explained that even if they couldn't totally exclude this issue, the new US agricultural law could not be regarded as a direct violation of WTO negotiations (as opposed to measures on steel). Mr Fischler said that it was more a political problem, "that would make WTO negotiations more difficult" but recognised that if Washington set up measures that strengthened payments linked to prices, it was possible that WTO rules were being breached.
During discussion, the French Minister of Agriculture, Hervé Gaymard, warned the Council and the Commission of the possible effects of the US law on: the world agricultural economy; new WTO negotiations; revision of the mid-term Agenda 2000. France also demonstrated the tendency of an increasing use of first pillar instruments (market expenditure) by the USA and asked what would be the possible effects of this law on world market prices and whether it complied with US multilateral commitments. Mr Gaymard also stressed that mid-term amendments ought not to threaten the principles and mechanisms decided upon at the Berlin Summit, and announced that his government would be submitting its contribution on the issue in two week's time. During a press conference he declared that he would be opposed to the principle of phasing out of aid and any further lowering of cereal prices. He also stated that the mid-term revision would act as a way of examining the management of certain branches of production in certain areas (cereals, fruit and vegetables, poultry etc.), whilst taking into full account the international environment. He confirmed that France would suspend the current national aid modulation mechanism (one of the themes for the mid-term amendment because for the Commission it would mean putting forward solutions that would enable the rural development pillar to be strengthened Editor's note). Mr Gaymard outlined that because of modulation in 2000 and 2001, a total of EUR 228 million had been recovered but only EUR 13 million had been spent on rural development actions (namely in the (TECs)Territorial Exploitation Contracts. He explained that the system in France did not work and that the calculating methods were complex and unfair. He suggested two reasons for this under-use of funding given from modulation: the obligation of co-financing by Member States; conditions for using this money that had certain similarities to a "gas works".
The Greek delegation position on the "mid-term review" shared the view expressed by the French Minister and explained that it would oppose any initiative that intended to "undermine", "gradually abandon" or even "re-nationalise" the CAP. Greece believes that the simple transfer of budgetary resources from the first to the second pillar would not resolve the problem of sustainable rural development and that is was necessary to complete the first pillar with measures that aimed to re-orientate production towards quality sustainable development. Greece also opposed the degression or de-lining of direct aid. Its document declared that the disassociation of aid from production transformed aid into social assistance and that in order to meet the needs of sustainable development, Community criteria ought to be "objective and uniform".