Brussels, 29/11/2002 (Agence Europe) - The EU Agriculture Ministers, who met for a round the table discussion on Thursday on the "horizontal" aspects of mid-term review of CAP (decoupling and modulation of direct aid, environmental and quality criteria), supported the principle of decoupling direct aid more than they had in the past. The Council was largely in favour of strengthening rural development policy, despite differing opinions on the means to achieve this. The debate confirmed that there were different and sometimes opposing interpretations of the consequences to be drawn from the decisions of the Brussels Summit. Franz Fischler pointed out that the Commission would present its legislative proposals "after Christmas" (probably on 15 January or 22 January, some sources say), which would be accompanied by impact studies on the effect of decoupling on farmers' income (a demand that has long been made by a majority of Member States).
France, Spain and Austria showed they were more open regarding decoupling of aid. French national Hervé Gaymard, who regrets total decoupling ("harmful" to land use and conservation of landscapes) said he subscribed to the aims of this principle and asked (like Spain) to study other possible options. Miguel Arias Canete, from Spain, was also not keen on total decoupling. He felt it would be necessary to study the parliament's idea of partial decoupling (which, in his view, would be justified given the latest decisions of the European Council). Some countries like Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Greece stressed the risks inherent to this system for farmers' income. Decoupling was mainly welcomed by Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom.
According to Mr Fischler, the decisions of the Brussels Summit (ceiling for agricultural spending over the period 2007-2013) have in no way upset the aims of mid-term review. He explained that the additional costs of reform of the milk and dairy products sector and the gradual introduction of direct aid to the new members proved it was indispensable to reform CAP, mainly in order to make savings. British Secretary of State Margaret Beckett supported this point of view and said that mid-term review was far from being dead and buried. Sweden felt the decisions of the Brussels Summit have fixed a precondition for the development of a new CAP. Mr Gaymard felt, for his part, that the Brussels Summit showed that justification of reform for budgetary reasons was no longer "topical" Austrian national Wilhelm Molterer considered there were solutions other than aid modulation, since the signal sent by the Heads of State and Government. The principle of aid modulation was fully supported only by Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Germany called for this system to be applied from 2006 and the United Kingdom said it did share the aims but not the means (it mainly criticises the franchise principle). France called for moderate transfer of funds from the first to the second pillar of CAP. Ireland said the principle is good but that it should be implemented in a different way.