Luxembourg, 24/06/2008 (Agence Europe) - During their meeting in Luxembourg on Monday 23 June, EU member state agriculture ministers discussed two major elements of the proposals on the common agricultural policy (CAP) “health check”, namely decoupling of aid and measures that may be financed under the new Article 68 of the future regulation. The Council still hopes to seal a political agreement on the dossier in November.
During the debate, many countries called for transitional periods and/or derogations to the general rule on continued aid decoupling. The countries supporting total decoupling of aid remain the same (United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany). “ It is about finding a right balance between, on the one hand, getting closer to full decoupling and, on the other hand, creating measures to address specific economic, environmental or social situations in certain areas”, Mariann Fischer Boel, European Agriculture Commissioner, commented.
Decoupling. Eskil Erlandsson, the Swedish minister, found the Commission's proposal “well balanced” and said it is a good thing to continue decoupling of aid. He even regretted the derogation accepted by the Commission for the suckler cow premium. Bulgaria's minister, Valeri Tsvetanov (like others), defended keeping the current premium (partially decoupled) for tobacco producers in place until 2013. Sabine Laruelle of Belgium gave her “agreement of principle” to strengthened decoupling of aid in other sectors. Germany also supports total decoupling between now and 2013. Gert Lindeman (Secretary of State at the German Ministry) called, however, for a transitional period until 2013 before applying the single payment scheme (decoupled payment) for a number of products (potato starch, dried fodder and high protein plants). Ireland pointed out that it has applied total decoupling since the beginning (2005). The Greek minister asked to be able to keep partially coupled aid in the tobacco sector. Elena Espinosa, the Spanish minister, declared that decoupling had allowed a certain income stability to be guaranteed, but that it had not managed to safeguard farming in some of the most vulnerable regions. She called for a more flexible model for tobacco.
Michel Barnier, of France, recommended a “case by case” approach on decoupling, and cited slaughter premiums, veal, dried fodder, flax, hemp and potato starch. France takes the view that another solution should be found with regard to subsidies for energy crops. They should not be abolished, as the Commission suggests. Luca Zaia, Italian Minister for Agriculture, explained that her country supports the Commission's proposal on decoupling of aid in the rice, nuts and durum wheat sectors. For tobacco (and seeds), however, Italy is calling for the current, partially coupled regime to be extended until 2013. The Hungarian minister was highly critical about total decoupling of aid. He called for flexible support to be kept in place for some sectors (tobacco, rice, dried fodder) until 2013. Total decoupling is supported by the Netherlands, except for potato starch and the suckler cow premium (idem for Austria). “Aid decoupling has had a disastrous effect in many regions. Minimum production must be guaranteed”, Jaime Silva of Portugal maintained. Finland has decoupled 90% of direct aid. This has, however, caused difficulties in vulnerable sectors. Sirkka-Liisa Anttila, the minister for Finland, recommended a premium coupled in some circumstances (seeds, protein crops and potato starch).
After listening to the different views expressed, Marian Fischer Boel made a recommendation, saying: “I see no reason why discussions should be reopened on tobacco subsidies”. She also said: “You will have to convince me about the benefits from maintaining the coupled payments otherwise the best solution will remain decoupling”, and “we can examine on a case by case basis” the possibility of granting longer transitional periods in some sectors but “the decoupling process has to start without any delay and fully apply in 2013 at the latest”.
Specific support. In Article 68, the Commission suggests that member states may decide to use from 2010 up to 10% of their national ceilings, for example to address specific disadvantages affecting farmers in the dairy, beef, sheep and goatmeat and rice sectors in economically vulnerable or environmentally sensitive areas. Also, the proposal foresees that, when it is uncertain whether measures meet the conditions of the WTO “green box” (aid that does not create competition distortion), these measures should be restricted to 2.5% of ceilings.
Very many countries (France, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Austria and Poland) called for greater flexibility in the ceilings and/or eligible measures. Hilary Benn, Secretary of State to the British Ministry, was highly critical about Article 68. “We open another door allowing an even more distorting recoupling”, he said. Instead, he recommended increased use of CAP second pillar measures (rural development). Estonia also stressed that Article 68 could lead to unfair competition conditions. Germany considered that implementation of Article 68 would lead to “additional reduction” of payments. And that, Mr Lindeman said, would not be of much interest for them. Portugal warned against provisions that could lead to countries or regions being subject to unequal treatment. Belgium protested against withdrawal of Article 44 (proposed by the Commission) which allows the adoption of exceptional measures in the event of an outbreak of animal disease.
Furthermore, some countries, such as Greece, recalled their opposition to the Commission's proposals on aid modulation (reduction of payments and transfer of funding in rural development programmes). (L.C./transl.jl)