Oulu, 26/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - During their informal meeting on 24-26 September in Oulu, Finland, agriculture ministers from EU Member States displayed divisions on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and what changes should be introduced to it, especially from 2014, when the financial framework for 2007-13 comes to an end. The theme chosen by the Finnish presidency, the future of the European agricultural model, gave a foretaste of the difficult negotiations in store for Member States in 2008-09: firstly, during a balance sheet on the health of the CAP and then during the mid-term review of the whole EU budget (income and spending, including that for agriculture). Everyone repeated that deep changes in this policy would only occur after 2013. In effect, all agricultural spending is protected until this date as in keeping with the European Council decision of October 2002.
During a press conference, the president of the Council, Juha Korkeaoja, recognised that the debate confirmed the divergent opinions between, schematically, countries from the north and those from the south on the subject of the degree of liberalisation of the CAP (notably on the question of production quotas and leaving land fallow, he explained). The minister said, however, that he had seen the desire of Member States to go “in the same direction, but at a different speed”. Mr Korkeaoja provides assurances that all ministers prioritised the environment, animal welfare and simplification of the CAP, whose procedures were judged to be too bureaucratic. Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel commented, “one vision, two speeds” (balance sheet and review of budget) periods for the health balance sheet and budget review. She provided assurances that the Commission did not intend to introduce new CAP reforms before the end of 2013. 1) Health balance sheet: in her speech to ministers, Fischer Boel announced the submission, between 2007-09 of several reports in support of the debates (conditions for direct aid, consequences of partial decoupling of aid and implementation of single payment system and functioning of milk sector). The objective of this health balance sheet “was never meant to be about further fundamental reform”, explained the Commissioner, who said that she did, nevertheless, expect that “we may come under pressure to find savings in the CAP” and as a consequence, in debates on the compulsory modulation of aid and ceilings for using this aid. The idea for fixing a ceiling on this aid was, in particular, rejected by the United Kingdom and Germany during discussion of Agenda 2000 (in 1999) and during reform in 2003. 2) After 2013: the Commission is expecting lively discussions during the mid term review of the financial framework for 2007-13 (in 2008/09), notably on the gradual reduction of direct aid (and undoubtedly on national co-funding of agricultural aid: Editor's note). The Commissioner insisted, “some seem even to believe that this rendezvous could be the moment to dismantle the CAP, or to change it radically…but do not expect me to be in this camp”, adding, “on the contrary, our agriculture and our rural zones will continue to need a strong CAP, also after 2013”. Ms Fischer Boel believes, nonetheless, that efforts at reform should continue. According to the Commissioner, it will be “less and less possible to count on export refunds”, the issue of public intervention should be tackled and production quota systems appear to be “more and more archaic”.
On agricultural aid, Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Poland and Finland defended the benefits of maintaining a certain percentage of bonuses linked to production levels. In the other camp, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Estonia supported the Commission's position in favour of total decoupling of aid. New Member States called for being able to use the surface single payment system, which they have been benefiting from until the end of 2013. The United Kingdom and Estonia called for the voluntary modulation mechanism (reduction of market aid to the benefit of rural development). Most countries and the Commission are opposed to modulation, which is not obligatory. Voluntary modulation was introduced during the European Council agreement of December 2005 on the financial framework, but Member States are finding it difficult to obtain an agreement on its implementation. Obligatory modulation has existed since 2005.
The United Kingdom and Denmark like the idea of CAP co-funding but the others do not.
Sector modifications, the United Kingdom and Denmark are calling for the ending of leaving land fallow and, more generally, of all measures that limit production. Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom have called for an end to milk quotas, as opposed to France, Finland and Austria, which support the extension of this system after 2014-15.
Several Member States: France, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic and Lithuania called on the Commission to implement crisis management and agricultural risk mechanisms. Insurance systems, which could, in the long term, particularly in the wine, fruit and vegetable sector, be called on to replace the current market support mechanisms.