The Polish Presidency of the Visegrad Group organised its third meeting of agriculture ministers in Krakow on May 16-17, which in addition to the Visegrad Four – the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia – was also attended by Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia (V4+3). The Ministry of Rural Development was represented by Minister of State for Agricultural Economy György Czerván.

On this occasion, the main topics at the traditionally closest and most important forum between the Central European nations was the European Union's draft directive on tobacco products and certain concrete issues regarding the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In the Joint Declaration published following the meeting, the parties drew attention to the fact that during the elaboration of European regulations on tobacco products, the interests of those who lake a living from tobacco cultivation and processing should also be taken into account, in addition to health-related criteria.

At the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in May, ten member states voiced the opinion that the adoption of the Tobacco Product Directive (TPD) could have a negative effect on tobacco production.

The representatives of the V4+3 discussed issues relating to the possible adoption of the TPD and adopted a Joint Declaration with the backing of five countries (Slovakia and Slovenia do not cultivate tobacco and so did not support the document directly). The Joint Declaration points out that farmers in European tobacco growing regions have now way of switching to alternative crops or sources of income and so tobacco production is not just a health issue, but also an economic and special one.

According to Hungary's standpoint, there is a need for tobacco cultivation because in certain regions this is the only production and income opportunity. Health objectives, with which Hungary agrees, must be achieved using methods that do not endanger the job opportunities of those who work in tobacco cultivation.

The V4+3 ministers also discussed the CAP reform process. Several elements are of extreme importance to Hungary in the current stage of negotiations.

The possibility of reallocating funds between Pillar I and Pillar II is an element which increases the flexibility of resource distribution. Hungarian farmers have until now made full use of all simple, normative-type direct funding, and this is also to be expected during the upcoming funding period. Total CAP resources have decreased, including rural development funding, but we do not wish to augment the resulting lack of funding in this area at the expense of direct funding.

Temporary national funding will also be available during the upcoming financing period, at a gradually decreasing level. This is an especially important form of funding for Hungary, because helping sensitive sectors is most easily achieved using this instrument and through funding related to production performed with EU funding. Hungary has an interest in ensuring that it will also be possible to provide temporary national funding from 2014.

The supporting of small farms would occur within the framework of a simplified system and would be exempt from greening requirements, and in the case of the abuse of cross-compliance rules, no sanctions would affect their direct EU finding. Since Hungary would definitely like to apply this form of funding, it is flexible with regard to the question of whether member states can introduce this budget item on a mandatory or voluntary basis. With regard to the determination of the amount of funding received, it is important that subsidies be reasonable, effective and proportionate.

Hungary regards the effective support of young farmers as being of great importance, and wishes to make use of this funding instrument even if it is not included in the CAP regulations as a mandatory funding element. It is important that we encourage the generation transition in agricultural production, and that viable farms are established. It is the interest of Hungary that additional support for young farmers is not linked to a maximum territorial limit.

(Press Office of the Ministry of Rural Development)