Brussels, 19/02/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Monday 18 February, EU agriculture ministers completed their analysis of the European Commission's communication on the health check for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The toughest part, however, remains to be covered. The Slovenian EU Council presidency now hopes that Council conclusions on this theme will be adopted on 20 March. Mariann Fischer Boel, Agriculture Commissioner, may then prepare her legislative proposals that are due to be adopted by the European Commission on 20 May. Negotiations on the health check should come to a conclusion at the end of the year.
Monday's discussions at the Agriculture Council showed once again the opposition that exists between the countries that hope to keep a strong CAP budget and appropriate measures for responding to market crises (intervention, refunds, insurance against health and climatic disasters, etc), and countries which, like the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark, call for total decoupling of aid and a roadmap for eliminating market support systems.
Single Area Payment Scheme. Several delegations (e.g. Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Luxembourg and Ireland) called for simplification of the single payment scheme (SPS). Belgium, Spain and Austria suggested a special clause that would allow countries (for example in 2009) to choose between different single payment models (more decoupling or a more regional model). Six member states (United Kingdom, Germany, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania) underlined their opposition to placing a ceiling on direct aid. Greece, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta and Bulgaria refused the idea of fixing a minimal payment level. Also, the new member states (including Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania) asked to be able to use the single area payment scheme (SAPS) until 2013. Some member states (Poland, Czech Republic and Lithuania) even suggested applying SAPS to the older member states with a view to simplification.
Cross-compliance. The effort made to simplify rules on cross-compliance (payments made subject to a number of environmental criteria being met) is backed by many countries (including Germany, France, Austria, Ireland and Luxembourg). Bulgaria called for a longer transitional period before applying provisions on cross-compliance (2013 for some criteria and 2016 for others). Also, Austria was opposed to extending the scope of these rules.
Decoupling of Aid: Like the Commission, Sweden and the United Kingdom supported total aid decoupling (decoupling consists of breaking the link between the level of subsidies and volumes produced). On the other hand, several countries stressed how useful it was, in some cases, to keep partially coupled support (to ensure balanced regional development): - Austria and Finland (suckling cow premium), Slovenia (in mountainous regions), Bulgaria (tobacco), Spain (tobacco, olive oil and bananas) and Italy (tobacco in the Puglia region and rice).
Additional payments. Article 69 of the 2003 regulation on the single payment scheme gives member states the possibility to reserve up to 10% of the national budget for direct aid to specific support (to promote protection of the environment, the quality and the marketing of products). A large number of member states (France, Spain, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands) called for greater flexibility in the use of this instrument, mainly with regard to its scope and the share of the budget that can be allocated to it. Sweden, for its part, expressed concern about how compatible this provision is with the WTO “green box” (domestic subsidies that do not affect trade).
Market measures. Several countries (including France, Spain, Ireland, Poland, Belgium, Romania and Bulgaria) stressed the need to conserve a number of management and market stabilisation instruments (intervention, storage, refunds) at least as “safety nets” especially when there is a strong fall in prices. The United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark on the other hand recommended abolition of such instruments as quickly as possible. What is more, Belgium called for compulsory set-aside to be maintained.
Risk management. France, Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Romania in particular underlined how urgent it is to develop new crisis-management and agricultural risk instruments (insurance systems, disaster relief funds, etc). The necessary funding would be raised under the first pillar (market spending and direct aid) of Common Agricultural Policy.
Aid modulation. Only a few countries (United Kingdom, Portugal and Latvia) supported the proposal to substantially increase the rate of aid modulation (reduction in premiums for transferring savings towards rural development programmes). Italy defended a specific modulation system (voluntary and proportional to the level of payments). The compulsory rise in modulation was mainly criticised by France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Austria and Belgium.
Milk quotas. Almost all countries admit that milk quotas will disappear in 2015. There are arguments, however, defending various scenarios before this date: - a rise in milk quotas (of 2% per year for Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom; and of 5% for Poland, as well as a very restrained rise for France, Spain, the Czech Republic and Italy); - Article 69 to help the regions made vulnerable by the end of quotas (France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Slovenia and Malta); - Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland and Bulgaria call for rules to be revised on the fat content of milk (which currently penalises countries producing milk with a low fat content); - drop in super levies when production quotas are exceeded (Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland); - and a system of compensation between member states (Germany, Italy and Luxembourg). (L.C.)