This news article was originally written in Spanish. It has been automatically translated for your convenience. Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation, however, no automated translation is perfect nor is it intended to replace a human translator. The original article in Spanish can be viewed at Las asociaciones agrarias muestran su total desacuerdo con la propuesta de la PAC

José Manuel Silva, general director of Agriculture and Desarrrollo Rural of the European Commission, went the attendant to present the proposal of the European Commission

The agricultural associations show his total disagreement with the proposal of the PAC

Ricard Arís20/10/2011

20 October 2011

The groupings and agricultural associations have not received very warmly the proposal that the European Commission has realised/realized for the PAC. An example of this were the statements of Miguel López, of COAG, the one who affirmed before the press conference that “has not been able to propose Europe a proposal that prejudice us more”. By his part, representatives of the European Commission affirm that there is time for rectifications and showed had to the dialogue.

But in spite of this option to the dialogue, the reality is that agricultural groupings as Asaja, the Agricultural Association of Youngsters Agricultres, see this proposal like an increase of the bureaucracy and his president, Pedro Cheap, affirmed in front of the journalists that “this reform has to be changed because the only that will do is to finish with the European agriculturalists”.

The presentation carried out in the headquarters of the Representation of the European Commission in Spain in Madrid, where the director of the Representation of the European Commission in Spain, Francisco Fonseca, explained that “the reception of the PAC has not been very affectionate, but the ball is in the balcony of the negotiation”. By his part, Ignacio Samper, director of the Office of the European Parliament in Spain, wanted to reassure the spirits affirming that “it goes to modify the PAC, want to listen to the sector because we want to follow with the debate”.

José Manuel Silva, in the centre/center, conversing with the director of the Representation of the European Commission in Spain, Francisco Fonseca, and beside the director of the Office of the European Parliament in Spain, Ignacio Samper, to his right.

A long process

José Manuel Silva, general director of Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission, went the attendant to present to journalists and representatives of the agricultural associations the details of the PAC, that finds at present in a process of debate that will carry out in the European Parliament and in the Council and that is planned that it last, like minimum, until 2013. In this year and half, expects that the proposal suffer modifications, since, in words of the own Silva, “treats of a PAC distinct to the previous” since it began with a public debate.

To finals of 2013 foresees that it approve the final text and with this will consolidate a change of model that has not seated very well to the associations. With this PAC, commented Silva, “establishes what will be ‘the music' of the reform”.

And this how pays ?

The system of finance of the PAC has been another of the conflictive points of the project, since from 2013 will leave to receive the direct payments joined up and decoupled, to happen to a system of two pillars. The first will be formed by a system of direct payments by territory and to the expenses of the market, and the second will allocate to the rural development (that already it received in the previous model of the PAC). In total both pillars added near of 435,5 million euros, that suppose an increase with regard to the 386,9 of the previous PAC.

The presentation of the PAC had a wide presence of journalists and representatives of the agricultural world.

Both pillars will allocate a total of 17,1 millions to the inocuidad of the foods, to the neediest people, to a reservation for the crises in the agriculture, to a European bottom of the Globalisation/Globalization and to the R&D in the alimentary security, the bioeconomía and the sustainable agriculture. This means that in 2014 the agriculturalists of the EU will have right to compulsory diets (specifically a diet of basic payment, a green “payment” and a diet for young agriculturalists) and to voluntary diets (the direct payments joined up and the help conceded to zones with natural disadvantages). All the agriculturalists will have access to the system of advice to the exploitations and all the payments, subjects to the condicionalidad.

But which are the challenges of this PAC for 2020?

The challenges to surpass in the proposal of the PAC can divide in three groups:

Economic Challenges:

alimentary Security (counter the increase of population that will produce in the next years)
Variability of the prices
economic Crisis

Environmental Challenges:

Broadcasts of gases of effect invernadero
Degradation of the floors
Quality of the water and of the air
Habitats and biodiversidad

Territorial Challenges:

Vitality of the rural zones
Diversity of the agriculture of the EU.

In this sense, the strategic aims for 2020 will centre/center in a viable alimentary production, in the sustainable management of the natural resources and the fight against the climatic change and achieve a territorial development balanced. Regarding the operative aims, pretends achieve an increase of the competitiveness, an improvement of the sustainability and a greater efficiency. By all this, expects that with this PAC achieve a creation of employment based in the knowledge. Silva mentioned to this respecto that “want to produce more and with greater respect to the environment”.

José Manuel Silva defended the proposal of the PAC and remembered that still there is time to rectify the final text.

General dissatisfaction

The answer to the proposals of the PAC found with the majority opposition of the associations of the agriculture and the ganadería. In the turn of questions arose a lot of doubts with regard to the current text, in which the associations asked “without agriculturalists how will arrive to the aims?” Or “Which mechanisms go to take to regulate the prices of cost and of the sale?” Or even Miguel López of COAG affirmed that this “proposal goes against all the interests of the agriculturalists”.

Also expressed that “they would have to produce changes asumibles” and that wish to have “capacity of real” negotiation. Also there was turn for some reproach, as that look for “horizontal helps when it has established a vertical system”.