Strasbourg, 12/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 12 March, in Strasbourg, the European Parliament decreed that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should not be too messed about during its “health check”. Also, with the adoption of the report by Luz Goepel (CDU) on this issue by a very comfortable majority (510 votes for, 88 against and 88 abstentions), the European Parliament cautiously supported the ideas of the European Commission set out in its communication six months ago.
The European Parliament takes the view that the CAP “health check” should allow the latest reforms to be consolidated, without reducing farm subsidies more, or applying the discriminatory cut in subsidies received by large farms. It also believes it is necessary to take into account the specific characteristics of regions in difficulty and sensitive sectors such as stockfarming. The amendments voted in plenary only very slightly amend the end of February position of the EP agriculture committee (EUROPE 9611). Furthermore, with the adoption of the report by the GUE/NGL group, the EP calls on the Commission to take into account, in the context of talks underway within the WTO, the specific characteristics of agricultural production as a “food production sector” and a “structuring element” for territorial balance, preservation of the environment and the safeguarding of adequate levels of food safety.
Direct payments. The EP considers that decoupling of direct payments has, in general, allowed European farming to succeed its market orientation. The Commission is invited to “push through the decoupling policy at a faster pace, unless this were to result in considerable socio-economic and/or environmental drawbacks in particular regions”, in particular the least favoured regions. In this context, MEPs consider it reasonable to partially maintain coupling of animal premiums until further order.
Article 69. The EP welcomes as a “first step in the right direction” the announced modification of Article 69 of Regulation 1782/2003 (which enables member states to retain and to reallocate various measures up to 10% of direct aid received by their farmers). It warns, however, that this instrument must not lead to re-nationalisation of the CAP (by using this article to strengthen rural development funds). Furthermore, MEPs consider that the allocation of this revised Article 69 could be increased up to 12% in member states that so wish, subject to an impact assessment.
Markets. The EP supports the immediate abolition of the set-aside obligation. By adopting a PES amendment, it adds that the environmental advantages of set-aside (such as the pollination of crops by bees) could be safeguarded through rural development programmes and a modified definition of what constitutes good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC). MEPs consider that, given the rise in environmental, climatic and epidemic risks, and increased price volatility on farm markets, which are expected, it is imperative to set in place additional risk prevention measures as a safety net. Furthermore, the EP: - rallies to the Commission's proposal to bring intervention thresholds down to zero for cereals and only to keep an intervention threshold, albeit reduced, for corn; - and considers that the private or mixed insurance systems (multi-risk) must be developed urgently.
Modulation. In the place of the Commission's proposals on modulation (+2% per year from 2010 to 2013) and aid ceilings (reduction to 45% of support for very large farms), the EP confirms its stance in favour of gradual modulation between 1 and 4% (reduction of premiums from 2009 to 2013 depending on the size of the farms).
Milk quotas. The EP is aware that the current dairy quota regime is unlikely to be continued in its present form after 2015. The Commission is invited to ensure that milk production is continued in Europe in mountainous or isolated regions and in other zones experiencing particular difficulties. With adoption of the report by Elisabeth Jeggle (EPP-ED, Germany) the same day (by 531 votes to 104 and 22 abstentions), the EP somewhat amended the Commission's proposal on the rise in milk quotas for the 2008/2009 marketing year (beginning 1 April). The EP's opinion allows member states to increase their production quotas by 2% on 1 April if they so wish. Also, amendments provide for pressure on countries that exceed their quotas to be eased. For the 2008/2009 marketing year, levies for surpluses would only have to be paid if there were still a surplus at European level after a process of balancing out between states that had exceeded their quotas and those that had under-used them. The Commission criticised the parliamentary amendments on this proposal and defended a 2% rise in quotas in all member states.
Ms Fischer Boel reproaches EP for being a little too “chilly”
During the debate the day before, Mariann Fischer Boel pointed out that the EP's view on this issue is crucial (as are the conclusions that the Agriculture Council will adopt on 17 March) to allow finalisation of the legislative proposals that the Commission is to adopt on 20 May. “I am quite happy to see that all the three institutions are in the same shop although we have different shopping lists”, the commissioner said, making the following comments on the content of the report: “I agree with the statement that direct payment remain necessary as a basic income statement. And I recommend further decoupling of aid as experience shows that the system has been working quite well and that the benefits of decoupling should be extended except where coupled payments have a very solid verification. The Assembly supports relaxing the provisions of Article 69 but one should not expect these provisions to resolve all problems. I am opposed to trying to reintroduce coupled aid under Article 69”. - “like the Parliament, I accept that some market instruments still have their justification” (such as intervention and private storage in the milk and dairy sector) and “I am happy to state that we agree” that these instruments have a role to play as a “safety net”; - with regard to risk management measures (in the event of adverse climatic conditions or epizootics), “we have to make sure that, on the one hand, these measures do not interfere with farmers' ability to react to market signs” and, on the other, that they are compatible with the World Trade Organisation system (over 30% losses before intervention); - with regard to modulation, “I restate my belief that we need a very ambitious rural development policy; and I find your report is rather cool in this area”; - “I find MEPs extremely chilly about reducing payments to large farms”; - “I noted with interest your idea of 'progressive modulation'” (some good ideas had to be taken into account in the legislative proposals, she added).
German MEP and rapporteur Lutz Goepel advised Fischer Boel to take the EP's opinion “very seriously” because, he said, it formed an excellent basis for later debate, and also with a view to budget negotiations for post-2013. He felt that a sudden change in animal premiums (in the event of more substantial decoupling, as is the Commission's general wish) would have a negative impact on the whole sector as a result of its structural problems. He also recommended flexible instruments for eco-friendly regions: this would be possible with a revised Article 69.
Speaking on behalf of the Council, Slovenian Agriculture Minister Iztok Jarc stated that the Council attached importance to single payments, market support and risk management. “We will do all we can to adapt our policies to the new challenges,” he said. The European Commission had to be less keen on biofuels, the beneficial effects of which on the environment have not been proved, said Bert Staes (Greens EFA, Belgium), speaking for the Parliamentary environment committee (which argues for less intensive farming methods and an increase in organic farming). Other speakers, like Véronique Mathieu (EPP-ED, France), also said that biofuels were “ecologically very controversial”.
British Conservative Neil Parish said that compulsory set-asides had to be got rid of, milk quotas removed by 2015 and payments decoupled. It was time that farmers considered market-oriented prices, Parish said. Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (PES, Portugal) felt that the report did not meet the farmers' hopes. There had to be more ambition on sensitive issues, fairer distribution of aid and a better response to new climate challenges, went on this former Portuguese agriculture minister. Speaking for the ALDE group, Niels Busk of Denmark said that the group backed decoupled payments, the “safety net” (market management), rural development, CAP simplification and increasing milk quotas to allow a “soft landing” in 2015 (when quotas end). “We are among those who believe that the CAP should be retained after 2013,” said Sergion Berlato (UEN, Italy), and he gave a very cautious welcome to the “progressive modulation” argued for in the Goepel report. This modulation might be excessive, and its introduction must not harm the first pillar of the CAP, he stated.
“It is not enough to take the CAP's temperature. When there is a high temperature, a cure has to be considered,” said Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens EFA, Germany), recommending measures acceptable to society and action on climate change. Furthermore, funding has to be shared out fairly, he said. He strongly criticised the Commission proposal on degressive aid (reduction of payments to large farms) Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL, Portugal) said the CAP had to guarantee safe food in sufficient quantities, while caring for the environment and biodiversity. The European Commission, however, was not following this path: prices for foodstuffs continued to rise and small farms continued to go under, while there was rising speculation on food products. The situation of small farmers has got worse since the 2003 CAP reform, Figueiredo said in conclusion. Witold Tomczak (IND/DEM, Poland) opined that, for years, the CAP had been supporting rich producers at the expense of the poorest: average aid of €68 per hectare in Poland in 2005, compared with €765 per hectare in Belgium, “It's unfair!” “If you want rural development and family-run farms, you must reject this report,” he said.
“A huge majority is in favour of the idea of more decoupling, and I am very appreciative of this idea,” Commissioner Fischer Boel said after MEPs had spoken. “Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf mentioned 'progressive modulation' and the need, from his point of view, to include labour intensity in these discussions. I can only say that this will be extremely bureaucratic and very, very difficult to manage,” she stated. (L.C.)