|
Background Notes for Agriculture and Fisheries Council (11-12/06/03)
6th June 2003
www.eu2003.gr
The Council will start on Wednesday 11 June 2003 at 15h00(1) , with the proposals on the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). The Council will continue on Thursday 12 in the morning (9h30) with agriculture (Foot and mouth disease) and fisheries ("Irish Box") items falling within the scope of competence of the Permanent Representatives Committee.
A compromise on the CAP reform will be presented at the beginning of the Council followed by a short debate in order for some delegations to clarify certain issues.
Trilateral meetings between the Presidency, the Commission and each delegation may be held on Wednesday and Thursday afternoon.
A dinner will be served to the Ministers on Wednesday evening (20h00 to 22h30).
Mr Georgios DRYS, Minister for Agriculture of Greece, will chair the meeting. It is expected that the Council will continue on Friday 13 June 2003 with a view to reach political agreement on the reform.
It is foreseen that the Presidency will hold a press conference on Thursday 12 at noon and at the end of the meeting.
CAP REFORM : LONG TERM POLICY FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
The Council is now expected to reach political agreement on the reform of the CAP after six months of intensive work at technical level. The debates that were held during the previous meetings of farm ministers on the seven legislative proposals (5586/03) submitted last January by the Commission are likely to be summarised in a Presidency compromise at the Council.
Since the last Council (9385/03), the working party on horizontal questions worked on cross-compliance, regionalisation set-aside and special entitlements (9157/03 + add1). Important progresses have been achieved on these technical issues within the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) at its meeting on 19 May, although the thorniest political issues (decoupling modulation, degressivity, and reform of the cereals and milk sector) still remain to be solved at ministerial level.
At the last Council, the Presidency held "trilateral" meetings with the Commission and each delegation in order to identify the key political items for each delegation and to assess the room for manoeuvre at the next meeting.
The horizontal working party met on 28 May. The High Level Group also met on 5/6 June in order to solve outstanding questions at technical level and to explore the paths for possible compromise at the Council.
At this stage of the discussion, important progresses have been made on the technical issues of the proposals.
Regarding the proposal on rural development (10065/03), a reinforcement of the specific support to young farmers undertaking investments in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) during a 5 years period of setting up. This includes an increase of the maximum support of 5% of the volume of the eligible investment (50% and 60% instead of 45% and 55%). An extra support may be granted to young farmers using farm advisory services in a 3 years period after setting up and in link with the setting up of their activity. An initial maximum payment granted annually and on a degressive basis is also envisaged in LFAs and areas with environmental restrictions. The maximum payment granted for food quality goes up to 3000 per holding (instead of 1500 in the initial proposal).
Regarding the "horizontal" regulation (direct support schemes see doc 10162/03 and 10165/03), the working group focused more specifically on:
Cross compliance: the number of legal requirements in Annex III with the farmers should comply to in order receiving direct payments has already been reduced (from 38 in the initial proposal to currently 18), and some delegations would favour further reductions. The list of good agricultural conditions (Article 5) drawn up in Annex IV in order for lands which are not being used (unused lands) to be kept in good conditions (ex: avoiding soil erosion) may be simplified in order to allow some flexibility for Member States, by keeping only a reduced number of standards rather than setting requirements.
IACS: the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is aimed at ensuring that agricultural holdings comply with the eligibility conditions for the granting of the Single Farm Payment, as well as the cross compliance issues. A majority of delegations do not currently support the principle of an IACS-based control for it entails an important administrative burden for the Member States' administrations. They would rather support a reinforced direct reporting system between the specialised inspection bodies and paying agencies rather than keeping a IACS link between them. However works at technical level showed support on the use of specialised bodies for performing their own risk analysis. The specialised control body would perform its own risk analysis on the IACS sample (5%), and retains at least 20% (which corresponds to a maximum control rate of 1%) of the farms for which the relevant standards apply.
Special cases and the national reserve (articles 43 and 45): regarding the special cases for which a payment separate from the Single Farm Payment would be granted, because the farmers concerned was not active during the reference period 2000/2002 (case of illness, young farmers, etc...), an extension of the list of potential eligible farmers could be envisaged as well as an increased flexibility for Member States to include some cases into the National reserve. The National reserve currently financed with 1% of the percentage of reference amounts overshooting the national ceiling, could be increased to 3%.
Farm Advisory system (FAS articles 13-19): progresses have also been achieved concerning the setting up of a FAS by Member States, according to the wishes expressed by a very large majority of delegations; the date of implementation could be postponed to 2007 (rather than 2004). Moreover farmers could participate to the FAS on a voluntary basis (rather than obligatory) would be facultative. Consequently the criteria of a 100 000/year turnover and/or 15 000 payment /year set for the participation of farmers to the FAS in priority would not be compulsory.
Set aside (articles 55-57): the proposal aims at introducing compulsory set aside equal to 10% of the area of the holding for which an application for the SFP is made equivalent;
a majority of delegations favours keeping a current system(3) , based on a 10% set-aside for cereals, oilseeds, proteins production (although some of these delegations would support the exclusion of proteins from set-aside for supplying reasons), with a minimum rate and a derogation granted to small and organic producers. The set-aside would be rotational.
Another option would link set aside obligation to entitlements based on historical set aside payments.
The Commission questions the consistency of a set aside linked to the variable production of COP (cereals oilseeds proteins) with regard to World Trade Organisation constraints and its "Green Box" (subsidies non-trade distorting and with no price support, decoupled from production levels or prices). However the Commission remains open on the possibility for a flexible rate of set aside (+/- 10%) to adjust as a market management tool. Regarding the carbon credit granted for growing energy crops, the Commission indicated that energy crops could be grown on set aside lands provided the Maximum Guaranteed Area to be reviewed.
Exclusion of perennial crops from the SFP (article 53): only perennial crops are excluded from the decoupling scheme, fruit and vegetables on arable land are no longer excluded. This raises still major problems for several delegations, which expressed fears that possible distortion of competition could arise between new fruits and vegetables producers eligible to SFP payment, while others would get payments under the traditional regulation on fruits and vegetables (Reg 2200/96). The Commission could show some flexibility for a Member States to decide, if it wishes so, to exclude these products from the scope of the SFP.
Concerning the "milk levy" proposal, which extends the quota regime until 2015, some technical amendments have been approved.
The European Parliament gave its Opinion on 5 June. Several reports presented by six different MEP examined in detail each of the legislative text and suggested amendments, which could be used by the Council with a view to reaching a compromise. It must be noted however that pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty, this Opinion is not legally binding.
Control of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)
The Council is expected to reach political agreement on the proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (15831/02). An amended proposal, endorsed by the Commission and by the Member States, without prejudice of scrutiny reservations, will be presented at the Council. This follows a first presentation by Commissioner BYRNE of the proposal at the Council on 27 January (5433/03).
Discussions at technical level have been held (7898/03) during the first quarter of the year and two issues were addressed at the Council on 8 April 2003 (7434/03):
1) The recognition by third countries of the new approach of the proposal for a Directive, which emphasises the role of emergency vaccination and the principle of regionalisation.
2) The financial consequences, both direct like the use of preventive vaccination on animals, and indirect, like the marketing of products derived from vaccinated animals.
The Committee for Permanent Representatives discussed this dossier on 4 June. Both of the two issues above-mentioned have now been solved, paving the way for a political agreement. The last changes brought to the initial proposal, which include many of the EP's amendments concern some additional restrictions to the movement and transport of animals and their product in the protection zone, a better information to the public on products from vaccinated animals. An outstanding issue concerns the appropriate circumstances under which Member States can decide the introduction of suppressive vaccination.
Some delegations may wish to emphasise during the Council their position with regard to the emergency vaccination policy. The Dutch delegation may issue a statement on the central role played by emergency vaccination in FMD policy where there is a huge concentration of herds with a high risk of contamination and specific conditions for emergency vaccination are met. Other delegations could underline the need to ensure that the stamping out of animals shall be used prior to using emergency vaccination as a last resort.
The proposal aims at laying down harmonised provisions on Community measures:
to control FMD in the event of an outbreak by setting common provisions for Member States in case of FMD's suspicion and
to improve the state of preparation of the Member States in case of a possible outbreak of FMD,
by enhancing in particular the role of emergency vaccination.
The new proposal provides more details on the measures to be taken in the event of an outbreak and gives a key role to emergency vaccination in order to avoid massive slaughters of animals in the framework of the disease control measures in certain specific circumstances. In case of suspicion of an outbreak of FMD, several measures are to be taken such as the census of animals of the suspected infected holding by the competent authority, the prohibition of movements onto and off the holding, and the establishment of a community databank for vaccins and antigenes. Measures in case of confirmation of an outbreak of FMD include the killing on the spot of animals of susceptible species on the holding, disinfecting procedures and tracing of products derived from or which have been in contact with suspicious animals. Conditions regarding the triggering of emergency vaccination are, among others, based on the potential risk that a FMD outbreak in one area of the EC could spread in another area due to its geographical situation or meteorological conditions.
The financial stakes of this proposal are high with regard to the Community contributions in the veterinary field (Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990). The share of the Community budget is estimated at 16.176 Million over a ten-year period, split between financial intervention, technical and administrative assistance and human resources.
Given that this dossier is under advisory procedure (Article 37 of the Treaty), the Opinion of the European Parliament is not legally binding (rapporteur KREISSL-DΦRFLER Wolfgang (PSE)) and was given on 15 May 2003. However it did adopt several amendments designed to ensure that emergency vaccination must be the first choice solution if an outbreak of FMD is
suspected or confirmed. It also sought to achieve a shift in emphasis in EU
policy to ensure that the social and psychological impact on the public of
diseases like the FMD is addressed alongside purely commercial considerations.
Another important amendment adopted proposes that the decision to introduce
emergency vaccination could be taken not only at the request of the Commission
or of the Member State affected, but also by any neighbouring country at risk.
FISHERIES - "WESTERN WATERS"
The Council will try to reach political agreement on the proposal on the management of fishing effort in relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (15253/02) and amending Regulation (EEC) nΊ2847/93. This proposal, which was presented, to the Council at its session on 16-20 December 2002 (15636/02), would replace former regulations in Western waters.
These Regulations, which ceased to product their effects after 31 December 2002, aimed at ensuring there was no increase in the overall fishing effort within areas and stocks, on the basis of the Act of Accession of 1985 for Spain and Portugal. In particular they establish for the "Irish Box", fishing effort limitation fixed by type of fishing and area, and evaluated on the basis of traditional fishing activities, except for the Spanish vessels (40 at any given time since 1996). The Irish Box refers to the 50 miles of water extending from Ireland’s coast. It is situated south of latitude 56 30’ N, East of 12 W and North of 50 30’ N (3) .
This proposal has no real financial consequences for the Community budget. But political stakes are very high, in particular for the most concerned Member States, namely Ireland, keen to keep the "Irish box" as a sensitive zone, Spain and Portugal, with regard to their fishing activities and fishing rights in this area. The United-Kingdom and France have also important interests in the fishing areas concerned.
A compromise of the Presidency is likely to be drawn up on the basis of the discussions that were held by the ministers at the last Council on 26 May. The Committee for Permanent Representatives met on 4 June and agreed to send the dossier to the working party prior to examine it again before the Council. However a compromise is likely to be presented to the Council by the Presidency on the basis of the discussions held at technical level on 2 June 2003. The working documents, which have been submitted at technical level as well as at the Committee for Permanent Representatives on 4 June did not meet all expectations from concerned delegations.
However main elements of discussion for a possible compromise would include:
The setting up of a biologically sensitive area, which has been newly introduced in the initial proposal, located at the Southwest of Ireland and representing roughly one quarter of the existing Irish Box for the protection of juvenile hake. The fishing effort of Member States in this area would be based on a reference period from 1998 to 2002. Firm opposition have been voiced by Ireland, which would rather favour the reinstatement of the former Irish Box and Spain, which emphasised that no scientific evidence would justify the creation of a closed area. Furthermore, Spain underlines that this period of reference takes place at the time where a separate treatment was put in place for the Spanish vessels in this area with a limited number of vessels allowed.
Access to outermost fishing areas: the introduction of an exclusion zone of 50 miles for demersal and deep-sea stocks is an issue of major concern for Portugal. This delegation would favour keeping a 200 miles exclusion zone for all species around outermost areas, namely Madeira, Azores and the Canary Islands.
The merging of sub areas into one single area is particularly contested by France in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Area VIII should be divided into four separate sub areas), Portugal in the continental shelf (areas IX and X) and United-Kingdom (sub area VIIa as a separate management area). These delegations would favour keeping the existing sub areas to avoid over exploitation of stocks by several fleets.
exclusion form the scope of the Regulation of pelagic species: the initial proposal suggested a limitation of the fishing effort on certain pelagic fisheries in order to avoid over-exploitation of these stocks; an exclusion from the scope of the Regulation aims at simplifying effort limitation scheme applicable to large management areas.
Limitation of fishing effort concerning the catch of demersal species: a distinction has been introduced in the limitation scheme based on a 1998/2002 reference period, between vessels using towed gear where the fishing capacity would be measured in Kilowatts (KW), and vessels using fixed gear where the fishing capacity would be measured in tonnage (GT). This change did not raise major objections at technical level. This effort regime should be done in accordance with the recovery plans (i.e. on cod) to be adopted by the Council in the future.
Exclusion from the calculation of the fishing effort above mentioned of vessels equal to or less than 18 meters, including in the biologically sensitive area: for the vessels below 18 meters, the fishing effort would be assessed globally for each fishery. Spain is currently opposed to a treatment, which would create discrimination of its fleet, where vessels in the Irish waters are generally above 18 meters.
The proposal aims in particular at:
controlling the fishing effort to avoid discrimination among Member States;
reviewing current ceilings for fishing effort while taking into account the reduction of fishing
possibilities during the last seven years;
controlling fishing capacity for pelagic species and limiting access to waters in ultra-peripheral areas.
Under the advisory procedure (Article 37 of the Treaty), the Opinion of the European Parliament is not legally binding and was given at its plenary session on 4 June 2003 (rapporteur Mr Struan STEVENSON, EPP-ED, UK). The initial rapporteur (Sean O NEACHTAIN UEN IRL) resigned after his proposed amendments aimed at maintaining the "Irish Box" as a separate sub zone with specific allocation were not accepted by the EP Committee for fisheries. However the vote of the EP calls for the preservation for a ten years period of the Irish Box as a conservation zone on the grounds its was a spawning area with the presence of juvenile species.
OTHER BUSINESS
Protection of forests in Europe
The Austrian delegation will submit a written information (10120/03) on the outcome of the Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of forests in Europe, Vienna 28-30 April 2003.
This note has been drawn up under the sole responsibility of the Press Service.
(1) The college of Commissioners is likely to meet on Wednesday morning to confirm a negotiating mandate on CAP reform and probably on the Regulation on western waters (Irish Box).
(2) See EC Regulation nΊ1251/99, article 6(1).
(3) For full information see also : http://www.bim.ie/maps/the_irish_box.jpg
Top
|
