Brussels, 28/02/2007 (Agence Europe) - Although the integration in 2004 of the ten new member states into the common market for agri-food products has been “generally positive”, the “low level” of direct aid received by these countries creates “unequal conditions of competition” with the 15 old member states, the members of the European Parliament's committee on agriculture have said, adopting an own initiative report by Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PPE-DE, Hungary) by a large majority on Tuesday 27 February. This report, which gives a mixed review of the integration of the ten new Member States into the common agricultural policy (CAP), will be examined by the European Parliament in its plenary session on 28 March in Brussels.
The EP's agriculture committee calls on the European Commission to take better account of problems in the new member states in decisions relating to the CAP. In particular it suggests offering these countries the “possibility of postponing the application of conditionality (granting aid to farmers on the condition that they respect environmental standards, animal welfare or product quality) to the end of the gradual introduction period for direct payments” and maintaining “the prescriptions relating to good agricultural and environmental practices at least during the single payment by area scheme”.
According to the members of the agriculture committee, the gradual introduction of direct aid over nine years in the new member states, added to a low starting level (25% of the rate applicable in the Union) creates “unequal conditions” for competition between farmers in the EU. They also stress that these countries have been “forced” to apply additional national direct payment schemes (“tops-ups”), “a form of co-financing and a quasi re-nationalisation of Community direct payments”, which has brought about “considerable political and economic difficulties in several new member states given that this scheme has placed a considerable burden on the national budgets and has limited the possibility of applying state aid schemes”.
The difficulties experienced by these countries include in particular: - the “substantial efforts” needed to conform with Community administrative and health standards; - the rise in production costs; - the “limited scope” of the pre-accession programme in the area of agriculture (Sapard); - the “significant difficulties” in implementing rural development programmes; - the freezing or decline of production due to low quotas in some sectors.
Fruit and vegetables, Russian embargo, maize and honey
The MEPS also state that “the Commission and the Council have proved slow or reluctant to understand the specific problems” of these countries “and to offer them the necessary aid” to resolve the various problems, such as difficulties in the soft fruits and apple markets, the “unjustified” blockade applied by Russia and Ukraine on exports from Poland to those countries, the proposed elimination of intervention rules on maize and the massive imports of honey from third countries.
Elsewhere, the agriculture committee recommended approving two technical proposals from the Commission: a modification to the funding rules for the EAGFF and an extension, to 30 April 2009, of the derogation on the fat content of milk granted to Estonia. The votes in plenary on these two reports by Neil Parish (EPP-ED, UK) should take place on 13 March in Strasbourg. (lc)