Q: What is left for this Commission still to do?
After the political agreement on the reform of the CAP, the main themes we face now are related to implementation of the reform, and my services in DG AGRI are working closely with Member States to ensure that programmes are workable.
The next immediate steps will be the adoption of Partnership Agreements – the framework that each Member State is putting together to ensure a complementarity and coordination of the 4 EU Structural Funds, i.e. in addition to Rural Development funds, this covers the Regional Funds, Fisheries Fund and Social Fund. It seems as if the first PA will be adopted very soon [Denmark, on Monday], with virtually all others already submitted and under consideration.
For me it is important to see how Member States will take up the new instruments which we are making available, such as the ITIs (Integrated Territorial Investments) and the CLLD (Community Led Local Development), and LEADER+.
This is important to see how Rural Development programmes fit into a broader, national strategy.
There is also the separate question of how Member States will want to implement their options for allocating Direct Payments, which must be submitted to the Commission by August 1.
In order to aid and stimulate this process, I have suggested to the Greek Presidency that we have an information debate, for example at the June Council, to see how Member States use the flexibility open to them.
Dairy report: The June Council will also see discussion of the Commission report on the dairy sector. I made the commitment at the time that the milk package was adopted in Dec 2012 that we would come with a report by mid-2014 on how it's being implemented and whether to make improvements.
Organic: After we published the proposals, my first prioirity was to have a look at the proposals with Member States at technical level. Now this is done, I hope the Council can discuss this topic.
In the coming weeks, the Council will probably also take a look at the School Food Schemes, and probably also take an information point on trade issues.
In July we will discover ore about the make-up of the new COMAGRI in the new EP, and from there we will have a clearer picture of how to move forward.
It looks as if questions relating to Fruit & Vegetables changes and the POSEI system for the outermost regions will be left to the next Commission;
Q: What about Milk? There's a report due in June.
My intention is not to come with new legislative proposals. We have discussed within the Council whether Ministers want new instruments, and we have seen that the Council is divided. It may help if the new EP COMAGRI expresses its opinion.
In the reform we have certain instruments – at least on paper – for a crisis situation. For me the question is whether it's possible to develop the toolbox now, when the market is positive, and therefore anticipate problems. Whereas i see many producers only want to use the market opportunities because milk is competitive.
Let me be clear, it is not a question of managing quantities, but for example how to use the new Milk Market Observatory to anticipate problems. How to give the information to facilitate production decisions, help negotiate contracts, and prepare Member States for crisis. For example, encouraging those that want to expand to expand according to market needs.
Yes, we have the traditional tools [public intervention, aid to private storage, and in crisis situations export refunds], but there could be a more efficient, less expensive and less painful way of anticipating such problems. The Commission will listen to the discussion.
Q: What other mechanisms are there?
There are of course Direct Payments and the Mutual Fund option under Rural Development, and of course the market crisis reserve. So, yes, if we have a crisis public money will help – but it would be more efficient to anticipate such problems before they become expensive – not just for those in fragile regions but also for those who might expand and have investments they need to repay. I remember the aid package that was agreed in 2009 was only paid out at the end of 2010 – far too late to have a real impact.
It's not my idea at the end of the mandate to put new proposals on the table, but it's good to debate this in Council in June. And maybe we can discuss it with COMAGRI in the autumn, remembering that the EP was very active in 2009.
Q: What about superlevy?
At the last Council, we heard from the Council legal service that there is no doubt that the superlevy system should apply next year – as the Commission legal service had previously stated
Q: And the butter fat content question?
We will look at the market and the during the Council in June, we will have another debate. But we've already seen that the Council is very divided on this. And we must be careful that we don't end up penalising those farmers who have respected the rules and the quotas, rather than some farmers who have simply expanded production because they have seen market opportunities.
Q: What about negotiations with the USA over TTIP? And possible access for dairy products?
On dairy, you should perhaps look at the Canada deal to see that we managed to negotiate extra access for European cheeses. We see the prospect for increased consumption of cheese in North America, and so there is much opportunity, especially for quality cheese. Still it's very early, and we have a long way to go before we start considering offers for market access.
Q: What about hormones, GMOs etc & food safety rules?
This is of course the responsibility of Tonio Borg, SANCO Commissioner, but we have been clear all along – led by President Barroso – that these issues are simply not up for negotiation. I have also understood from the main candidates in the EP elections, with aspirations to lead the Commission in future, that this will not change. EU consumers do not want these, and this is something which the Commission cannot ignore.
Q: How closely involved are you?
Of course I am closely involved in the negotiations. Karel De Gucht [Trade Commissioner] has to keep me in the picture and consult me. I was in Ottawa for the Canada negotiations, and in Bali for the WTO. When we differ, we discuss things with the President.
We made a number of important structural changes within DG AGRI recently, but we have kept a strong Trade element with 2 Directorates looking at international issues;
Q: So what might we get from TTIP?
The most sensitive agricultural issues are these food safety issues, but of course we also have the Question of Geographical Indications, where we are looking for recognition of our quality issues, and of course there is the question of market access. These are the 3 hottest elements, but on all of them, we will only see the results at the end. There will certainly be no market access indications from our side until the US comes with a more serious approach.
Q: Coming back to Dairy, many Ministers are calling for changes. Are you saying that nothing will happen?
The Council can't take a decision by itself, but the Council is asking the Commission to look at the fat content question. It is true that such a question is in the Commission competence [through the Management Committee] but I have no intention of taking unilateral measures without clear support, ie a political mandate from the Council. If we were to take such a unilateral approach and there were to be severe market problems in 2-3 years time, the Commission would face enormous criticism – and rightly so. Until now, there is no clear majority either way. Let's see what people say in June. By that stage we will have had the first Board meeting of the Milk Market Observatory.
Q: Do you feel that the reform did not go far enough?
My personal feeling is that the toolbox is OK. However, milk is special and needs special attention, and my feeling is that only ex-post payments is not enough, and the risk is that some farmers can be adversely affected by small fluctuations – not only those who expand, but also those in more sensitive regions. This is why I am open to some form of early warning.
But let me reassure you, I have no hidden agenda; These are my thoughts now, and i believe it's better to discuss things objectively now while the market is positive, rather than wait till there's a problem – when it's always the Commission's fault J
Let me underline, I have no intention of relaunching the reform discussion now, but we need to discuss the issues because volatility is a reality.
Q: So what will the next Commission do? When s the next Mid-Term Review?
Please can we wait at least until we have implemented this reform; Farmers really do need some stability. At any rate, we really must see how the reform is working before we can discuss adjustments. For any adjustments to Greening, for example, we need to take account of the results. Yes, we have some experience from Agri-environment schemes, but the long-term success of Greening will depend on lessons that we learn.
Q: What about maize growers using “mulching” as an equivalent practice for EFA?
I don't want to comment on that example, but if Greening stimulates innovation on how to improve agricultural practices and techniques, then yes we must take this into account – and the Commission has the right through Delegated Acts to make such changes.
Q: There will be a new Delegated Act seeking to adjust the coefficient for calculating the use of nitrogen fixing crops on EFA from 0.3 to 0.7. When will this come and what happens if the EP rejects it?
It will come when the new EP is in place. I would like to think that they will back this change negotiated by their predecessors. However, if they don't like it, the previous coefficient of 0.3 will stay.
Q: On these Delegated Acts, what can you say about co-decision?
This was the 1st CAP reform taken under co)decision, as agreed in the Lisbon Treaty. It's important that we learn by doing. It's clear that the Delegated Acts delegates power to the Commission. But at the same stage it's normal that the Commission takes accounts of the co-legislators when implementing the delegated acts. My aim is not to block the decision-making process, but t et a deal.
It's been easier to work with Member States because of course they have the administration in place, and we are used to working together. It's been more difficult with the EP because of the lack of infrastructure – and the act that the co-legislators can only say yes or no on the delegated Acts. In these circumstances, the credibility of co-decision was at risk.
IN all, I feel it was a normal process, and the next Commission must take this experience into account next time. But it was also a learning process for the EP.
Q: Is there enough Greening?
It is very important that this reform has introduced the instrument of Greening. Of course, there will be room to make it more efficient, and we are still learning on the technical aspects for improvement at local & regional level. As I mentioned earlier, we will be able to improve the system as we go along.
But for me, it is also very important that it's accepted by farmers – as well as taxpayers – which is why we might need to learn from experiences with an over-complicated approach.
Member States must also find a balance between flexibility and simplification in the way that they apply the greening measures.
Q: What about your future? Do you want to stay Commissioner? And are you only interested in agriculture, or would you take another portfolio?
It will not surprise you to hear me say that i am open to a second mandate, but it certainly doesn't only depend on me. It will depend on the outcome of the EP elections, on the next Commission President and above all on the Romanian Government. Things will be clearer in a few months' time.
Q: What do you expect from this Informal and the discussion of Diversity?
I think this is very important. Clearly with an EU of 28 we can no longer have a 1 size fits all approach. We can't look to “uniformise” everything. We have to leave flexibility to Member States to take account of their own specificities, but within a common framework. However, we must also look at ways in which we can embrace this diversity and turn it into an asset. We are different from the USA, for example, with our traditions and cultures, and our agricultural situations and we need to build on this diversity.
With 12 or even 15 Member States the EU made rules for all, and then agreed all kinds of derogations – for this or that. Now with 28, it makes sense to have more flexibility within the rules, while still maintaining common standards and other rules (e.g. competition rules) on the Single Market.
Source: ag-press.eu
