EU: Agriculture and Fisheries Council
House of Lords
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Caroline Spelman) has today made the following Statement.
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council on
The agenda was confined to discussion of the three main common fisheries policy (CFP) reform regulations. Following previous discussions of key aspects of the package at Council in March, April and May, the presidency aimed to agree Council general approaches on the CFP basic regulation and Common Market Organisation (CMO) proposals. The presidency also submitted a progress report for Council to note on the later proposal for a European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), on which there had been insufficient time for agreement to be reached.
Following an initial table round it was clear that the main outstanding issues on the compromise texts related to discards, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and regionalisation. On discards, a significant number of member states were opposed to early deadlines for the introduction of landing obligations, or opposed to legal provisions on the elimination of discards in principle. On MSY, some member states were reluctant to agree challenging targets and raised concerns about practical implications in specific fisheries. Many member states expressed concerns about the role of the Commission under a regionalised process.
Discussions of these issues continued throughout the day and into the early hours of the following morning with the presidency pushing hard for agreement to a general approach. The UK played a major role in the process, forming alliances in support of our objectives and helping to shape the final compromise texts.
Council eventually reached agreement on a general approach on the CFP reform regulations which met many of the UK's objectives. The agreement included introduction of a discard ban by 1 Jan 2014 for pelagic stocks and phased introduction beginning in 2015 and fully in place by 2018 for other UK fisheries; deadlines for the achievement of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels in fisheries by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest; and agreement on the processes to regionalise decision-making in line with the proposals the UK had developed with other member states. This was an important first step in securing genuine and effective CFP reform. The final agreement through co-decision with the European Parliament is not expected to be concluded until late 2013.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Caroline Spelman) has today made the following Statement.
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council on
The Council discussed the draft rural development regulations, which set the rules for the use of Pillar 2 of the CAP. There were two questions: whether there should be a minimum percentage of spending on environmental activity, and EU co-financing of Pillar 2 measures.
On environmental activity, the proposal included a non-binding guideline of a minimum of 25%. Member States split three ways: those that felt it unnecessary; those that could accept if it remained non-binding, and those that wanted it to be legally binding. There were also calls to include more areas under the provision such as forestry, Natura 2000 and the water framework directive.
On co-financing, the Commission proposal was for a single rate of EU funding for most spending in most member states, with a higher rate for less developed regions and some specific measures. Member states' views were varied: no increase at all, a simple rate would be a useful simplification, requests for national flexibility, higher rates for countries undergoing austerity, and that environmental measures could be co-financed at 100%. The UK and others argued that money transferred from Pillar 1 to 2 should not require national co-financing.
The presidency presented its report on the CAP negotiations. It was broadly welcomed by member states, but did stimulate some discussion, notably on greening and the need to develop wider options for Pillar 1. Newer member states wanted a solution for the convergence of payment levels between member states. A number of member states noted stronger concern about the proposals on capping than was reflected in the report.
The Council adopted conclusions on the protection and welfare of animals. The Netherlands submitted a declaration expressing concern at the Commission's lack of ambition in the EU welfare strategy and the importance of dealing with the shortcomings identified in its review of the animal transport legislation-and abstained. Sweden, supported by Belgium, Austria and Denmark, made a statement to the same effect as that made by the Netherlands. The UK also made a statement on improving welfare during transport, noting particularly the importance of scientific evidence. The Commission noted the widespread support for its strategy and promised to bring forward various non-legislative proposals to address some of the practical problems on animal transportation.
Under any other business the Commission provided information on the level of member state compliance on sow stalls. Eighteen would be compliant by
The Commission had written to Ministers on the G20 Action Plan about food price volatility and agriculture. G20 Ministers and officials had met in Mexico to discuss implementation, and its report and recommendations were discussed at the G20 summit on 18 and
The presidency informed the council of draft conclusions on antimicrobial resistance, expecting the conclusions to be adopted at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) on
The Commission presented its routine report on organic production and labelling. There would be no legislative proposals now but it would engage in a consultation until the end of 2013
Poland and Lithuania supported by eight member states asked for export refunds to be reopened. This was rejected by the Commission but they would keep the situation under review.