Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 25 and 26 February in Brussels covering agricultural issues. I was accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responsible for the natural environment, water and rural affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who spoke on fisheries issues. Alun Davies AM, Richard Lochhead MSP and Michelle O’Neil MLA also attended.

This statement updates Parliament on the outcome of discussions of all agenda items at the February Council with the exception of the AOB point on the mislabelling of beef products. I reported on this item in my written parliamentary statement of 27 February, Official Report, column 26WS.

Agriculture—CAP Reform—Basic Payment

Council began with a range of views on its revised text on the CAP basic payment. On the main issue of internal convergence, those member states who have long opposed the move to full convergence of payment levels within a member state or region (i.e. moving from a system based on historical payments to one using area payments), welcomed the revised text and its lower level of ambition. The UK along with some other member states supported strong Commission calls for a more ambitious proposal. I argued that full internal convergence was required, although I did welcome the extra flexibility the text granted to member states about how they reached that point.

Member states agreed with the proposal that they could scale back entitlements for some claimants if there would be a large increase in entitlements across the member state. The proposed redistributive payment also received support, although some queried its complexity. Most new member states continued to push for continuation of the single area payment scheme (SAPS).The presidency acknowledged this as an issue to which the Council would need to return.

CAP Reform—Transparency of CAP Beneficiaries Data

The Council confirmed broad support for the Commission’s proposals on publication of CAP beneficiaries’ data, above a set threshold. The UK and some other member states argued that we should go further by publishing names and receipts of all CAP beneficiaries, without exempting small farmers. Others opposed the Commission’s proposals on the grounds that they were not clearly in line with the recent ECJ ruling, or that publication of names was unnecessary to meet the objectives of public control and transparency. While views on whether a threshold was required and at what level it might be set differed the presidency felt able to conclude that there was sufficient political support for the Commission proposals.

AOB—European Protein Strategy

Austria presented a paper calling for co-ordinated support for EU protein crop producers. They called for a mechanism to support research and information sharing, but also for protein crops to be eligible for cultivation on environmental focus areas as part of CAP reform. This received support from a significant number of member states. The UK called for a WTO-compliant approach, noting that there was already a sophisticated market for protein crops; and that reform was meant to move away from coupled support. There was therefore no need for specific EU support.

Fisheries

Fisheries business at this Council consisted of an update on negotiations on the EU-Morocco fisheries partnership agreement and a substantive negotiation on outstanding elements of CFP reform.

The Commission gave an update on discussions with Morocco over a new protocol to the EU-Morocco fisheries partnership agreement. Some member states were pressing for a swift agreement while others, including the UK, emphasised the importance of a good deal which safeguarded value for money and sufficiently addressed the needs of Western Sahara.

With regard to reform of the CFP, Council revisited the general approach agreed in June 2012 to finalise the outstanding details left undecided. The discussion focused primarily on measures to eliminate discards through landing obligations, or “discard bans” (in articles 15 and 16), although it also touched on integration of the CFP with environmental obligations (article 12).

The Irish presidency tabled a number of proposals, including amendments to the deadlines for the introduction of landing obligations, increased “de minimis” exemptions, new species-based exemptions, and proposals for mandatory swapping of quota between member states.

Firm deadlines for the introduction of landing obligations were agreed, although some deadlines were moved back one year from what had been proposed. Despite pressure from a significant bloc of member states to water down the detailed discards provisions and to expand the flexibilities available, the principles of progressively implemented landing obligations across all quota species remain intact.

The final package maintained de minimis provisions, but blanket species-based exemptions that risked damaging the credibility of the ban were ultimately rejected. Proposals that would have required member states to swap away a certain percentage of their quota were also removed from the package.

The Council position now incorporates these provisions on discards, alongside the other measures agreed in the general approach, for example on fishing at sustainable levels, and processes to deliver more regionalised decision making. The final package will be agreed between Council and the European Parliament, with a process of “trilogue” discussions expected to begin shortly.