The EU Agricultural Council discusses the mid-term review
MetadataShow full item record
CTA. 2002. The EU Agricultural Council discusses the mid-term review. Agritrade, October 2002. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Permanent link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10568/52674
An initial exchange of views on the Commission's ...
An initial exchange of views on the Commission's CAP mid-term review proposals took place at the Agricultural Council meeting on July 15th 2002. It was reported that every delegation found some positive elements in the proposals. Indeed, there was broad support for the reinforcement of the EU's rural-development programmes, particularly in the areas of environmental protection, food safety and the promotion of quality production. A number of member states, however, felt that the proposals went beyond the review mandate set out in Berlin in 1999. Indeed 10 of the 14 member states felt that the proposals brought into question the framework for agricultural policy already established up to 2006. The harshest criticism came from France and Spain, with France being particularly concerned over the implications of the US Farm Bill. Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland also found cause for complaint in the proposals. Other member states (Germany, the UK, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands) were more supportive and looked for a more radical approach leading to saving on the EU agricultural budget. Formal Commission legislative proposals regarding specific review proposals will be tabled before the end of 2002 (probably in October) in the following areas: reducing the intervention price for cereals; adjusting the special supplementary payment for durum wheat; reducing the intervention price for rice; further moves towards de-coupling; cross compliance; dynamic modulation; farm auditing; agri-environmental measures; rules on state aids. However, no Council decisions will be made until the spring of 2003. In opening the Council debate Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler argued that the need for change was now urgent and could not simply be postponed until 2006, both because of the need to move forward in the WTO negotiation on agriculture and the need to establish a clear framework for the accession of new EU members.