Bias persists against newer EU states

Agriculture commissioner admits reform concessions.

Dacian Ciolos, the European commissioner for agriculture and rural development, has admitted compromising on his ambition to make support to farmers fairer across the EU. He has backed down in order to win national governments’ approval for his reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). 

Speaking before the European Commission published proposals for CAP reform yesterday (12 October), Ciolos said that he had wanted to go further in reducing the differences between the level of payments given to farmers in the ‘old’ and ‘new’ member states.

Under the current system, farmers in the 15 countries that were members of the EU before 2004 benefit from direct payments up to four times higher than those received by farmers in newer member states.

Now Ciolos is proposing that this gap be only reduced, so that the highest direct payment in any member state is no bigger than one-and-a-half times the EU average. “If you talk strictly in terms of a CAP, it’s hard to say to a farmer that – on the same common market with the same rules – you have to accept these differences,” Ciolos said.

He agreed to scale back his redistribution plan when the proposal for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-20 was approved by the Commission at the end of June. “You have to have a dose of pragmatism,” he said. “That is why commissioner Lewandowski [for financial planning and the budget] asked for a limitation of this redistribution as part of the multiannual financial framework.”

Ciolos said he had signed up to the Commission’s position on the MFF because he recognised that it took time to rebalance the level of payments. “You can’t do it too quickly if you want to be pragmatic,” he said.

He angrily dismissed a suggestion that his revised approach to CAP reform suited the French government’s position on maintaining support to farmers. “I think it is clear that the reform I am proposing is for an agriculture that takes into account the whole European Union and not just one country.”

While France had been a major beneficiary of the CAP in the past, this was no longer the case, he said. “It will be even less so with the redistribution of payments after 2013.”

Fact File

Proposals

Direct payments

For farmers in member states that receive less than 90% of the EU average, the difference between the payment and 90% of the EU average will be reduced by one third. For example, if a farmer gets 75% of the EU average (ie, 15% lower than 90%) this gap will be reduced by one third so they get 80% of the EU average

Active farmers

To qualify for direct payments, organisations will have to demonstrate that at least part of their activities involves active farming.

Greening

30% of direct payments will be linked to farming in an environmentally sustainable way. This will require farmers to respect crop diversity. No more than 70% of cultivated land can be planted with a single crop, a stipulation intended to tackle the problems of monoculture. Farmers will also have to maintain permanent pasture and take 7% of land out of production as an environmental focus area.

Capping

The maximum amount an enterprise can receive in direct farm aid will be capped at €300,000. The amount of direct payments below that level will be reduced according to a sliding scale based on income bands of €50,000. Capping will not apply to 30% of payments earmarked for greening. Member states will be able to use the funds generated by capping for rural development spending.

Simplification

The payments system will be simplified for farmers with holdings of three hectares or less.

Other measures

Higher direct payments to encourage young farmers.

Member states can use 5% of direct payments for less-favoured areas.

Intervention and other market support measures (such as aid for private storage) will be maintained as a safety net.

Farmers will be able to participate in the European Innovation Framework to speed up the transfer of new technologies.

European commitment

Ciolos said he considered “personally offensive” suggestions that his appointment as commissioner for agriculture was a victory for France. “It does not take into account my actions. Over the last year and a half I’ve had the oppor-tunity to show my European commitment,” he said.

Click Here: cheap INTERNATIONAL jersey

Ciolos’s proposals include an attempt to overcome the usual resistance from national governments to capping the size of payments for big farms. “We are not saying that large farms are not good for the EU,” he stressed.

Employment levels would be taken into account when calculating how to cap direct payments, meaning that large farms employing significant numbers of farm-workers would keep most of their funding. Ciolos said that the funds generated from capping payments would remain within that member state. “This will perhaps reduce the fierceness with which some ministers fight to keep hold of the money,” he said.

Rural development

Instancing the UK – a traditional opponent of moves to limit payments based on farm size – he pointed out that the funds generated by capping direct payments to big farms would be directed to rural development. This was in line with the UK’s desire to see money shifted from providing direct support to farmers and into supporting rural areas, he said.

Ciolos acknowledged that the decisions on the level of payments and their distribution would be determined by the outcome of the negotiations by national governments on the 2014-20 MFF. But he insisted that many of the important elements of the reform could be agreed independently of the overall deal. He highlighted the linking of payments to farming in an environmentally sustainable way and ensuring that support went to active farmers,

The Commission’s role in the negotiations, he said, would be to ensure that the final agreement responded to the public’s demands to continue support for European agriculture while making it more environmentally friendly and assisting smaller farmers in particular.