AGRI/I.4 MP/mp D(2010)

AGRI/I.4 MP/mp D(2010) 270725
3.11.06.03.15.01.08 2010cdFa
« Limited/Limité/Intern »
MINUTES
OF THE 55TH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS HELD ON 6 MAY
2010
Chair:
Aldo Longo (Committee);
Christina Borchmann (expert group).
The delegations of all the Member States were present.
1.
CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT BUDGET FOR THE EAGF AND THE EAFRD
[AGRI/D/241717/2010-EN, AGRI/D/241722/2010-EN, AGRI/D/241730/2010-FR]
FOR
2011
After examination by the expert group, the Committee was consulted on the estimated needs for
appropriations under the EAGF and the EAFRD for the financial year 2011. [cf. documents
AGRI/D/241717/2010-EN (‘Justification of the appropriations’), AGRI/D/241722/2010-EN
(‘PDB 2011 — Appropriations by budget line’) and AGRI/D/241730/2010-FR (‘APB 2011 —
Document de travail’)1].
For expenditure under the EAGF, these needs were estimated at € 43.375 billion (€ 43 million less than
for the financial year 2010, the margin being mainly in market aids, in particular for the milk market),
after deduction of revenue to be assigned to the EAGF for the financial year 2011 (€ 688 million).
For the EAFRD, the commitment appropriations needed for the financial year 2011 amounted to
€ 14.431 billion, i.e. an increase of 0.5 % in relation to 2010. For payment appropriations, total needs
were estimated at € 13.401 billion, i.e. nearly the same as in 2010.
At the meeting of the expert group, delegations had voiced some questions or remarks, concerning in
particular:
⎯ the draft budget (DB) in general
• Would the margin of € 719 million decrease under the subceiling of Heading 2 with the
Amending Letter (Belgian delegation)? Reply from the Commission: the margin could and
probably would evolve in the Amending Letter.
• The appropriation needs for the market sectors, in particular for Chapter 05 02 12 (milk and milk
products), are underestimated. Should these needs increase in the Amending Letter, could it be
necessary to trigger budgetary discipline (Irish delegation)? Reply from the Commission: we did
not present budgetary discipline in N-1 because the DB was based on the current market
situation rather then on a crisis situation, such as that which affected the milk sector last year.
⎯ Cereals (Chapter 05 02 01)
• The French, Austrian and Belgian delegations considered that the price for barley was very low
and that more tonnes for intervention should be envisaged. According to the French delegation,
the DB was inconsistent. Reply from the Commission: the Amending Letter for the DB would
provide an opportunity to take into account market developments.
• The Danish delegation supported the Commission and stressed that if the price of barley fell this
did not mean necessarily that there would be intervention.
⎯ The programme of aid for the most deprived (Chapter 05 02 04)
1
The Chair of the expert group stressed that, in compliance with the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament had already
received a copy of the Draft Budget (DB) and that consultation of the Committee on the Amending Letter to this draft was
planned for the second half of October 2010.
1/6
• The German delegation (see its declaration in Annex I) along with the British, Swedish and
Dutch delegations rejected the estimated appropriation needs of € 500 million (amount and
ceiling) for line 05.02.04.01 as a matter of principle (according to them, the measure is covered
by social policy and not by agricultural policy).
• The French delegation (see its declaration in Annex I) considered on the other hand that it was a
good proposal, that that programme had its proper place in the CAP and that € 500 million was
perfectly justified owing to the crisis.
• The Chair of the expert group replied that a draft amendment to this measure was being
discussed by the Council and the Parliament and that, until those discussions were complete, the
Commission would maintain its position. She recalled moreover that more than 90 % of the
products distributed under that programme in 2010 came from public stocks.
⎯ Fruit and vegetables (Chapter 05 02 08)
The Swedish delegation criticised the estimated appropriation needs for heading 05 02 08 12 —
School Fruit Scheme, which it considered excessive because certain Member States did not use up
the available appropriations, the remainder being redistributed to different Member States that
could use it in an irresponsible way. The Commission replied that that question had been dealt with
and voted on the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables.
⎯ Milk and milk products (Chapter 05 02 12)
• The Austrian delegation, supported by the French delegation, considered that Commission
estimates (reduction of € 839 million compared to 2010) were optimistic, especially for butter
and for skimmed milk powder, and that intervention for milk powder should be envisaged. The
Commission representative replied that purchases of milk powder were already envisaged.
• For the Irish delegation the situation of the milk sector was more stable, but changes to prices for
2011 could be expected; the estimated € 104 million was not sufficient. The Commission
representative replied that the DB took into account the current market situation and that
Commission forecasts were generally reliable.
⎯ Direct aids — Single Payment Scheme (Article 05.03.01 01)
The Greek delegation, referring to the table ‘Appropriations by Line budget’ (document
AGRI/D/241722/2010-EN), considered that the estimated amounts did not correspond to those in
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. The Chair of the expert group replied that Regulation (EC)
No 73/2009 was not exhaustive, that it included, in its annexes 4 and 8, coupled aid, not available
for the single payment scheme, and that the amounts available for the scheme were on page 58 of
working document AGRI/D/241730/2010-FR.
The Chair noted that the Committee had been consulted.
2.
OTHER BUSINESS
R. MILDON
Directeur
(signed)
Aldo LONGO
Chair of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds
2/6
ANNEX I
DECLARATION OF THE GERMAN DELEGATION
‘Protokollerklärung der deutschen Delegation am 6.05.2010
Die deutsche Delegation lehnt die Veranschlagung von 500 Mio. € bei Haushaltslinie 05 02 04 01
sowohl aus grundsätzlichen Erwägungen als auch hinsichtlich der Höhe des Mittelansatzes ab.
Bei der Gratisverteilung von Agrarprodukten an Bedürftige handelt es sich nicht um Maßnahmen zur
Regulierung der Agrarmärkte, sondern um eine sozialpolitische Maßnahme.
Darüber hinaus ist der konkrete Mittelansatz von insgesamt 500 Mio. € auch aufgrund der inzwischen
wieder gesunkenen Preise vieler Agrarrohstoffe nach Ansicht der D-Delegation nicht begründet. ’
TRANSLATION
‘Declaration of the German delegation of 6 May 2010
The German delegation rejects the budget estimate of € 500 million for budget line 05.02.04.01 both as a
matter of principle and as regards the amount of the appropriations.
The free distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons is not a measure for regulating
agricultural markets but rather a social policy measure.
Moreover, the German delegation also considers that the estimate of € 500 million is not justified
because the prices of many agricultural commodities have fallen further in the meantime.’
DECLARATION OF THE FRENCH DELEGATION
‘COMITE DES FONDS AGRICOLES — 06/05/2010
Déclaration de la délégation française
****
La délégation française comprend que les estimations utilisées par la Commission dans l’élaboration du
projet de budget sont basées sur l’état actuel des marchés. Elle prend bonne note de l’intention de la
Commission de procéder si nécessaire, lors de la publication de la lettre rectificative agricole prévue en
octobre, aux modifications des prévisions de dépenses pour 2011 en fonction de l’évolution des marchés.
Elle indique qu’elle sera particulièrement vigilante à cette occasion, en particulier pour ce qui concerne
les secteurs des céréales et des produits laitiers.
Indépendamment des éventuelles modifications des estimations de la Commission au moment de la
publication de la lettre rectificative agricole, la délégation française estime que les hypothèses de calcul
présentées aujourd’hui par la Commission révèlent une incohérence. En effet, la Commission ne prévoit
pas de recourir à l’intervention pour l’orge au cours de la campagne 2010-2011. Or, le faible niveau de
prix prévu (90€/t) devrait justifier l’ouverture de l’intervention par voie d’adjudication. S’il est vrai
qu’une telle ouverture reste à la discrétion de la Commission, rien n’empêche cette dernière de prévoir
une telle éventualité dans ses prévisions.
3/6
Concernant le programme d’aide aux plus démunis (PEAD), la délégation française, soutient la position
suivante:
⎯ sur le principe, la place du PEAD au sein de la PAC est légitime et appropriée, en particulier parce
que le PEAD est adossé au régime de stockage public (l’année 2010 en a été une illustration, 2011 le
sera également) ;
⎯ le montant de 500 M€ prévu au budget 2011 est justifié en raison du niveau des besoins du
programme (21 Etats membres y auront recours en 2011) et légitime dans une situation de crise
économique affectant en particulier la population européenne la pus démunie.’
TRANSLATION
‘COMMITTEE ON THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS — 06 May 2010
Declaration of the French delegation
****
The French delegation understands that the estimates used by the Commission in preparing the draft
budget are based on the current state of the markets. It takes due note of the intention of the
Commission, upon publication of the agricultural Amending Letter envisaged in October, to modify, if
necessary, the expenditure forecasts for 2011 according to market developments. It points out that it will
then be particularly vigilant, in particular as regards the cereal and milk product sectors.
Independently of any modifications to the Commission estimates upon publication of the agricultural
Amending Letter, the French delegation considers that the calculation assumptions presented today by
the Commission reveal an inconsistency. Indeed, the Commission does not envisage resorting to
intervention for barley during the marketing year 2010-2011. However, the low price level envisaged
(€ 90/t) should justify the opening of intervention by a tendering procedure. While such a procedure
remains at the discretion of the Commission, nothing prevents it from providing for this possibility in its
forecasts.
Concerning the programme of aid for the most deprived (MDP programme), the French delegation
supports the following position:
⎯ in principle, the MDP programme has a legitimate and appropriate place within the CAP, in
particular because it is based on the public storage scheme (2010 provides an illustration of it, 2011
will as well);
⎯ the amount of € 500 million provided for in the 2011 Budget is justified due to the needs of the
programme (21 Member States will use it in 2011) and legitimate in a situation of economic crisis
that particularly affects the most deprived in Europe.’
4/6
ANNEX
Attendance list for the 55th meeting of the Committee on the Agricultural Funds of 6 May 2010
Chair:
Mr Longo (Committee);
Ms Borchmann (expert group).
Member States
Belgium:
Mr
Geerts, Mr Vyvey
Agriculture
Bulgaria:
Mr
Filyanov, Ms Yaneva
Agriculture
Czech Republic: Mr Havliček
Ms Havránková
Agriculture
SZIF/SAIF
Denmark:
Mr Hallenberg
Mr Sondergaard
Agriculture
Paying agency
Germany:
Ms Schmidt, Ms Röpcke
Mr Ehlerding
BMF
BMELV
Estonia:
Ms Aro
Agriculture
Ireland:
Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Coleman
Permanent Representation
Greece:
Ms Iakovidou
Agriculture, Rural Development and Food
Spain:
Mr Pino, Mr Lorca
Permanent Representation
France:
Mr Erhel
Agriculture
Italy:
Mr Giannini
Mr Mazzamati
Mr Gurrieri
AGEA
Economics
Agriculture
Cyprus:
Mr Miltiadous
CAPO
Latvia:
Mr Šnore
Agriculture
Lithuania:
Ms Lisinskaite
Agriculture
Luxembourg:
Mr Muller
Agriculture
Hungary:
Mr Vajda
ARDA
Malta:
Mr Attard, Mr Tabone
MRRA (Paying agency)
Netherlands:
Mr Mulder
Agriculture
Austria:
Ms Heckenthaler
Mr Mayrhofer
Agriculture
Finance
Poland:
Ms Szelagowska
Agriculture
Portugal:
Mr Correia
IFAP
5/6
Romania:
Ms Ecaterinescu
Co-ordinating Body
Slovenia
Ms Gostiša
Agriculture
Slovakia:
Mr Mihal
Agriculture
Finland:
Mr Patjas
Mr Räty
«Ministry of Agriculture»
MAVI
Sweden:
Mr Skottheim
Agriculture
United Kingdom:
Ms Holliday, Mr Lyons
DEFRA
Commission:
Mr Markakis, Mr Munch, Mr González, Mr Bollen, Mr Ivan, Mr Petraitis, Mr Zurdo, Mr Van Den Eeckhoudt, Mr
Larivière, Mr De Smet, Mr Berruga, Mr G. Mertens, Ms Bourjou, Ms C. Mertens, Ms Mara, Ms Dewolf, Ms
Seve, Ms Sobczak, Ms De Guelbenzu, Ms Mataityte, Ms Troupin (Directorate-General for Agriculture and rural
development/Directorate I); Mr Matos, Ms Neszmélyi (Directorate-General for Agriculture and rural
development/Directorate D); Mr Demougin, Ms Funari (Directorate-General «Budget»).
6/6
MINUTES OF THE 55TH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
AGRICULTURAL FUNDS HELD ON 6 MAY 2010
Corrigendum
On page 5, instead of «ANNEX», read «ANNEX II».