|
|
 InsideTrack magazine November 2011To keep up to date, visit the INSIDETRACK website by following this link CAP reformFirst reactions‘Disappointing’ and a ‘missed opportunity’ were commonly used descriptions aired by Ministers to describe the Commission’s CAP reform proposals. Speaking on 20 October at the first Ministerial Council meeting following the publication of the proposals, Ministers universally condemned the proposals for adding ‘red tape’ or ‘green tape’ to farmers and Member State administrations. One thing is sure: with 27 Member States and over 600 MEPs to please, the proposals are not going to make everyone happy. Some parts of the package were greeted with general approval, such as the schemes for young and small farmers, for retaining coupling in sensitive areas and the further attempt at restricting payments to ‘active’ farmers. But these plaudits were limited. Flat-rating ‘too quick’ says SpelmanSecretary of State Caroline Spelman supported her Welsh, Scottish and N Ireland neighbours with a plea that the proposed rate of transition to a flat-rate system within each Member State was too quick. Wales has already indicated that they are considering a single payment region. Since the payment differential is being reduced between Member States we anticipate that there may be pressure to even up payments between England and Scotland. Most delegations asked for more flexibility in implementing the Pillar 1 reforms, including Spelman for the UK, with more discretion given over the 30% greening payment and the percentage rate for environmental set-aside. But this amount of discretion would never be provided within the Council and Commission Regulations of CAP direct payments. Considerable discretion can be given with legislation enacted as Directives or with schemes involving co-financing of payments, such as Rural Development programmes, but not within direct payment schemes applying the same rules for all. Most Member States attacked the Commission’s ‘greening’ proposals in detail, focusing particularly on the 30% payment tier as being too high and the 7% ‘ecological focus area’ as being ‘excessive’ and ‘counter-productive’. Spelman called for all greening measures to be left in Pillar 2, allowing Pillar 1 payments to be phased out “as food prices rise”. Echoing
Farm Ministers’ concerns about ‘green’ tape, MEPs
sitting on the European Parliament’s Agriculture and Rural
Development Committee (COMAGRI) also raised concerns about the
complexity of the greening measures proposed. Ciolos’ response
to criticism over the complexity of the multi-layered Pillar 1
payment, and the greening element in particular, is that all States
recognise the importance of greening measures to provide a ‘mass
effect’ across the whole EU. The Commission’s impact analysis which accompanied the proposals suggested that greening would:
The impact assessment also includes an increase in over-wintered cover of 20m ha. This measure never reached the final proposal. When questioned as to whether some Pillar 2 agri-environment schemes could be included as a Pillar 1 ‘greening tier’, Commissioner Ciolos said that the “idea was not to mix these issues” but he was open to discussion as to whether some ‘certified’ schemes may be included. Whether included formally or not, ELS or HLS scheme holders who have in-field options and buffer strips would qualify in any event. 39% in UK agree with cappingThe UK, Germany, Romania, Czech, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Latvia and Slovakia spoke up against capping. Discussions in Council earlier in the year revealed that a high proportion of States opposed capping and this remained the case at the Council meeting of 14 November. With three big countries – Germany, Italy and UK – all against, and smaller countries from both the Mediterranean and eastern blocks also not in favour, there should be sufficient dissent to block this element of the reform. Interestingly 39% of British people surveyed agree with capping payments because the “biggest farms don’t need unlimited payments but still benefit from these subsidies”, according to a Eurobarometer survey carried out this summer. A quarter opposed capping because “the bigger the farms the bigger the needs”. The figures for the EU as a whole are respectively 47% for capping and 28% against. A higher proportion of people support a link between payments and EU-wide environmental protection measures than area-specific environmental protection.
Contact details InsideTrack, 11 Margett Street, Cottenham, Cambridge, CB24 8QY, United Kingdom
|
Tel:
+44 (0)1954 252859 
Fax:
+44 (0)1954 252502 Email 