ࡱ > #` p bjbj5G5G Ar W- W- $ $ $ | | | 8 D p0 ^ : L 6 6 6 4 $ | h - $ t t t $ $ 6 6 z z z t $ 6 $ 6 2 z t z z 6 Y 8 $ $ 6 _<0 | b . . 0 ^ \ 8 $ z 9 ; X " ^ t t t t p0 p0 D 2 A t A p0 p0 2 t 8 " $ $ $ EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
20042009Session document
A6-0470/2007
{26/11/2007}26.11.2007
*
REPORT
on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(COM(2007)0484 C60283/2007 2007/0177(CNS))
{AGRI}Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Jan Mulder
TITLE \* MERGEFORMAT PR_CNS_art51am
Symbols for procedures * Consultation procedure
majority of the votes cast
**I Cooperation procedure (first reading)
majority of the votes cast
**II Cooperation procedure (second reading)
majority of the votes cast, to approve the common position
majority of Parliaments component Members, to reject or amend the common position
*** Assent procedure
majority of Parliaments component Members except in cases covered by Articles105, 107, 161 and 300 of the EC Treaty and Article7 of the EU Treaty
***I Codecision procedure (first reading)
majority of the votes cast
***II Codecision procedure (second reading)
majority of the votes cast, to approve the common position
majority of Parliaments component Members, to reject or amend the common position
***III Codecision procedure (third reading)
majority of the votes cast, to approve the joint text
(The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the Commission.)
Amendments to a legislative textIn amendments by Parliament, amended text is highlighted in bold italics. Highlighting in normal italics is an indication for the relevant departments showing parts of the legislative text for which a correction is proposed, to assist preparation of the final text (for instance, obvious errors or omissions in a given language version). These suggested corrections are subject to the agreement of the departments concerned.
CONTENTS
Page
TOC \t "PageHeading;1" DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION PAGEREF _Toc183840908 \h 5
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 23
PROCEDURE 25
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(COM(2007)0484 C60283/2007 2007/0177(CNS))
(Consultation procedure)
The European Parliament,
having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0484),
having regard to Article37, paragraph 2, third subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C60283/2007),
having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A60470/2007),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty,
3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;
4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
Text proposed by the CommissionAmendments by Parliament
Amendment 1
RECITAL 1 A (new)
(1a) Cross-compliance has already proven to be a very important instrument under the reformed Common Agricultural Policy as regards justifying expenditure. Cross-compliance does not impose new obligations on farmers, nor does it entitle them to new payments following their compliance. It simply establishes a link between direct payments made to farmers and the public services they render to society as a whole by complying with Community legislation in the field of environment, food safety and animal welfare. The requirements of EC legislation are generally very strict compared to standards which apply elsewhere in the rest of the world.
Amendment 2
RECITAL 1 B (new)
(1b) Given the value the EU places on these high standards, the reformed Common Agricultural Policy has effectively transformed the first pillar of the policy into a de facto rural development policy, as farmers are being rewarded for supplying public services, rather than receiving unconditional payments linked to production. To meet the objectives of the cross-compliance system, the full understanding of the system and co-operation of farmers are required - something which is currently lacking, because of the fear which the regime has generated at farm level. A better informed farm sector would find compliance easier. However, understanding the details of 18 specific EU Directives and Regulations presents huge problems not just for farmers, but also Member State competent authorities.
Amendment 3
RECITAL 1 C (new)
(1c) Cross-compliance has linked the payment of support to farmers to complying with 18 different EU Directives and Regulations. By its very nature, the monitoring of cross-compliance is complex. The system of cross-compliance requires that those carrying out the checks have a full understanding of farming and are familiar with the different sectors of farming. Adequate training for those carrying out inspection of farmers' activities is vital. In addition, inspectors should have the discretion to take into account un-seasonal and sudden factors which mitigate against full compliance - due to no fault of the farmer.
Amendment 4
RECITAL 1 D (new)
(1d) The cross-compliance system and/or the Common Agricultural Policy will probably require further adjustment in the future, as currently the level of payments does not always seem to be in balance with the compliance efforts made by the farmers concerned, because payments still depend to a large extent on historic spending. In particular animal welfare legislation is obviously most burdensome for livestock farmers, which is not reflected in the level of their payments. However, if imported products met the same animal welfare standards, then there would be no need to compensate farmers for their compliance with Community legislation in this field. The Commission should therefore strive for recognition of the non-trade concerns as import criteria within the WTO negotiations.
Amendment 5
RECITAL 1 E (new)
(1e) Continuous effort should be put into the simplification, improvement and harmonisation of the cross-compliance system. Therefore the Commission should present a report on the application of the cross-compliance system every two years.
Amendment 6
RECITAL 1 F (new)
(1f) Reduced administrative burdens, harmonised checks, amalgamation of checks, including within the European institutions, and timely payments would increase the overall support among farmers for the cross-compliance system and so increase the effectiveness of the policy.Justification
An attempt should be made to strike a correct balance between necessary checks to ensure quality and the production requirements of producers. This includes, for example, coordination or amalgamation of checks within the European institutions, particularly on the basis of the recently observed increase in uncoordinated checks within the latter (Commission, Court of Auditors, etc.).
Amendment 7
RECITAL 1 G (new)
(1g) In the spirit of wanting to promote compliance, advance notice is essential. It is also required to assist farmers, many of whom are part-time operators, to prepare for inspections. Unannounced checks have no real place in the system, as they contribute to a disproportionate but valid sense of fear among farmers about the overall cross-compliance regime. Where "deliberate and serious fraud" is suspected, other means of attack, including Member State domestic law, should be used. When unannounced checks are carried out they should be done on the basis of good intelligence of the competent authority that a serious problem exists in a given farm. At the same time the effectiveness of the on-the-spot checks should not be jeopardised.
Amendment 8
RECITAL 1 H (new)
(1h) In order to limit the burden on farmers, Member States and the European institutions should be encouraged to keep both the number of on-the-spot checks and the number of controlling agencies to a minimum, without prejudice to the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/20031. Member States should therefore be allowed to perform the minimum control percentage at the level of the paying agency. Further, Member States and the European institutions should be encouraged to take additional measures to limit the number of persons carrying out the controls, to ensure that they are properly trained and to limit the period during which an on-the-spot check may be carried out on a particular farm to a maximum of one day. The Commission should assist Member States in meeting the requirements for integrated sample selections. Sample selection for on-the-spot checks should be carried out independently from specific minimum control percentages as provided for under the specific legislation falling within the scope of cross-compliance.
-------------------------------------------
1 OJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 18. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 972/2007 (OJ L 216, 21.8.2007, p. 3). Justification
An attempt should be made to strike a correct balance between necessary checks to ensure quality and the production requirements of producers. With this in mind, not only Member States but the European institutions too should only perform those checks which are genuinely necessary.
Amendment 9
RECITAL 1 I (new)
(1i) Administrative and on-the-spot checks as set out in Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 are conducted in such a way as to ensure effective verification of compliance with the terms under which aids are granted, and of the requirements and standards relevant for cross-compliance. These need to be made complementary under the existing integrated administration and control system, in order to prevent duplication and enable all the checks to be conducted in a single visit.
Amendment 10
RECITAL 1 J (new)
(1j) Member States should ensure that farmers are not punished twice (reduction or exclusion of payments, as well as a fine following non-compliance with the relevant national legislation) for the same case of non-compliance.
Amendment 11
RECITAL 1 K (new)
(1k) The reductions in payments applicable in cases of non-compliance with cross-compliance rules, obligations and requirements differ, depending on whether non-compliance is deemed an intentional act or the result of negligence. In the same way, those reductions should be proportionate to the importance of the sphere of activity concerned by the non-compliance at the farm holding, particularly where this is a mixed crop and stock farming holding.
Amendment 12
RECITAL 2
(2) Article 44(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 provides that farmers shall keep at their disposal for a period of at least 10 months the parcels corresponding to the eligible hectare. Experience shows that this condition risks putting high constraints on the functioning of the land market and creates significant administrative workload for the farmers and the administrative services. A reduction of the time period would not jeopardise the management of the cross-compliance obligations. On the other hand, it is also necessary to establish a date where the parcels should be at the farmer's disposal to avoid double claims for the same land. Therefore it would be appropriate to establish that farmers shall have the parcels at their disposal on the 15 June of the year of submission of the aid application. The same rule should also be applied for the Member States applying the single area payment scheme. It would be also appropriate to set up the rules as regards the responsibilities under cross-compliance in case of transfer of land.(2) Article 44(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 provides that farmers shall keep at their disposal for a period of at least 10 months the parcels corresponding to the eligible hectare. Experience shows that this condition risks putting high constraints on the functioning of the land market and creates significant administrative workload for the farmers and the administrative services. A reduction of the time period would not jeopardise the management of the cross-compliance obligations. On the other hand, it is also necessary to establish a date where the parcels should be at the farmer's disposal to avoid double claims for the same land. Therefore it would be appropriate to establish that farmers shall have the parcels at their disposal on the latest date for submission applicable in the Member State concerned of the year of submission of the aid application. The same rule should also be applied for the Member States applying the single area payment scheme. It would be also appropriate to set up the rules as regards the responsibilities under cross-compliance in case of transfer of land.Justification
The latest date of submission applicable in the Member State concerned is a better identification date. Otherwise it would be impossible for farmers in a Member State where the latest date of submission is before 15 June to submit a correct application if a parcel were sold during the period between the latest date of submission in a Member State and 15 June.
Amendment 13
RECITAL 7 A (new)
(7a) In his single application, the farmer declares, inter alia, the area he is using for agricultural purposes, the scheme or schemes in question and his payment entitlements, and attests that he is aware of the conditions attached to the granting of the aid in question. Those conditions should correspond not only to the aid eligibility criteria but also to the criteria on public health, animal and plant health, animal welfare and respect for the environment on which payment of that aid is conditional. By that attestation, the farmer undertakes to comply with those various conditions, and contracts to abide by them.
Amendment 14
ARTICLE 1, POINT -1 (new)
Article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(- 1) In Article 4, paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added:
In the case of directives, the Commission shall ensure that the statutory management requirements in the areas referred to in paragraph 1 are transposed in a harmonised manner in each Member State.
Amendment 15
ARTICLE 1, POINT 1, POINT (A)
Article 6, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(a) Paragraph (1) is replaced by the following:
"1. Where the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions are not complied with in a given calendar year (hereinafter 'the calendar year concerned'), the total amount of direct payments to be granted, after application of Articles 10 and 11 to the farmer who submitted an application in the calendar year concerned, shall be reduced or cancelled in accordance with the detailed rules laid down under Article 7.
Subject to paragraph 2, the farmer who submitted an aid application shall be held liable unless he can show that the non-compliance in question is neither the result of an action or omission directly attributable:
(a) to himself, or
(b) in case where the agricultural land has been transferred during the calendar year concerned,
- to the transferee where the transferral has taken place between the date referred to in Article 44(3) and 1 January of the following calendar year;
- to the transferor, where the transferral has taken place between 1 January of the calendar year concerned and the date referred to in Article 44(3)."deletedJustification
The current text of article 6, paragraph 1 is preferred. The farmer who owns a particular parcel should be responsible for complying with the statutory management requirements and good agricultural and environmental conditions, and only for the period that he owns the parcel. Also in case non-compliance is found on a parcel which is owned by a farmer, different from the farmer who submitted an aid application for that particular parcel, only the new owner's direct payment may be reduced. This will prevent unnecessary legal battling and simplify execution by the controlling agencies. Moreover, the Commission proposal is transferring the burden of proof to the farmer. The current situation should be maintained, in which the controlling agency has to prove that a certain case of non-compliance is attributable to an action or omission directly attributable to the farmer concerned.
Amendment 16
ARTICLE 1, POINT 1, POINT (B)
Article 6, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 and pursuant to the conditions laid down in the detailed rules referred to in Article 7(1), Member States may decide not to apply a reduction amounting to EUR 50 or less per farmer and per calendar year.3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 and pursuant to the conditions laid down in the detailed rules referred to in Article 7(1), Member States may decide not to apply a reduction amounting to EUR 250 per measure or less per farmer, per programme and per calendar year.Justification
As direct payments serve the function of supplementing incomes, and the rules are manifold, multi-layered and complicated, a de minimis threshold of EUR 50 is too low. It should be at least EUR 250. Applicants are expected to accept various lower limits and reductions, so that it would not be right to apply different standards here. De minimis thresholds would also greatly help the administration to limit bureaucracy. The link to the programme significantly reduces the volume of administrative work.
Amendment 17
ARTICLE 1, POINT 1, POINT (B)
Article 6, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
Any finding of non-compliance shall nevertheless be subject to a specific follow-up by the competent authority. Any such findings, the follow-up measures and the remedial action to be taken shall be notified to the farmer.Any finding of non-compliance shall nevertheless be subject to a specific follow-up in the risk analysis by the competent authority. Any such findings, the follow-up measures and the remedial action to be taken shall be notified to the farmer. This subparagraph shall not apply where the farmer has taken immediate remedial action putting an end to the non-compliance found.Justification
Any finding of non-compliance shall nevertheless be subject to a specific follow-up in the risk analysis and should not oblige controlling agencies to perform a repetitive control, as this would mean an unacceptable increase of the costs of control for the Member States. The last line of the rapporteur's initial proposal is omitted, because it can not be maintained legally.
Amendment 18
ARTICLE 1, POINT 2
Article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
Any finding of minor non-compliance shall nevertheless be subject to a specific follow-up by the competent authority. Any such finding, the follow-up measures and the remedial action to be taken shall be notified to the farmer. This subparagraph shall not apply where the farmer has taken immediate remedial action putting an end to the non-compliance found".deletedJustification
Controlling agencies should not be obliged to perform a repetitive control in case they found a minor non-compliance, as this would still mean a heavy burden on Member States' controlling agencies.
Amendment 19
ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 A (new)
Article 7, paragraph 4, subparagraph 1 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(2a) In Article 7(4) the following subparagraph is added:
"In any case, in the new Member States, the percentage of reduction referred to in Article 6(1) shall take into account the relevant percentage of the schedule of increments applicable in a given year in accordance with Article 143a.
Amendment 20
ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 B (new)
Article 7, paragraph 4 b (new) (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(2b) In Article 7, the following paragraph is added:
"4b. Where a reduction or exclusion of payments is being applied following non-compliance registered during an on-the-spot check as referred to in Article 25, no fine shall be imposed under the corresponding national legislation for the same case of non-compliance.
Where a fine has been imposed following non-compliance with national legislation, no reduction or exclusion of payments shall be imposed for the same case of non-compliance."
Amendment 21
ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 C (new)
Article 8 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(2c) Article 8 is replaced by the following:
"Article 8
Review
By 31 December 2007 at the latest, and every two years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report on the application of the cross-compliance system accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals notably with a view to:
amending the list of statutory management requirements set out in Annex III,
simplifying, deregulating and improving the legislation under the list of statutory management requirements, special attention being paid to legislation concerning nitrates,
simplifying, improving and harmonising the control systems in place, taking into account the opportunities offered by the development of indicators and bottleneck-based controls, controls already performed under private certification schemes, controls already performed under national legislation implementing the statutory management requirements, and information and communication technology,
The reports shall also contain an estimate of the total costs of control under the cross-compliance system of the year preceding the year in which the report will be published."Justification
Continuous efforts should be put into the simplification, harmonisation and improvement of the system of cross compliance, taking into account the opportunities offered by indicator and bottleneck based controls, controls already performed under private certification schemes, controls already performed under nationally implemented legislation of the statutory management requirements and information and communication technology. The Commission should therefore draw up a report every two years so as to monitor the progress made and to plan the modifications still to be made. Notably the nitrates directive would merit critical scrutiny. Finally, the report should contain a specified estimate of the costs of controlling cross compliance.
Amendment 22
ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 D (new)
Article 18, paragraph 1, point (e) (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(2d) In Article 18(1), point (e) is replaced by the following:
"(e) an integrated control system that comprises verification of eligibility conditions and of the requirements in terms of cross-compliance,
Amendment 23
ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 E (new)
Article 25 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(2e) Article 25 is replaced by the following:
"Article 25
Controls on cross-compliance
1. Member States shall carry out on-the-spot checks to verify whether the farmer complies with the obligations referred to in Chapter 1. These controls shall take place within a period of not more than one day for a particular farm.
2. Member States may make use of their existing administration and control systems to verify compliance with the statutory management requirements and good agricultural and environmental conditions referred to in Chapter 1.
However, Member States shall endeavour to limit the number of controlling agencies and the number of persons carrying out the on-the-spot checks on a particular farm.
These systems, and notably the system for identification and registration of animals set up in accordance with Directive 92/102/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and Regulation (EC) No 21/2004, shall be compatible, within the meaning of Article 26 of this Regulation, with the integrated system.
3. Member States shall endeavour to plan controls in such a way that farms which can best be controlled in a particular period during the year, due to seasonal reasons, are indeed controlled in that particular period. However, if the controlling agency could not control a particular statutory management requirement, or a part thereof, or good agricultural and environmental conditions during an on-the-spot check, due to seasonal reasons, those requirements and conditions shall be deemed to be met."Justification
Point 3 is added to the rapporteur's initial proposal. If Member States were obliged to carry out repetitive controls, in case certain requirements or conditions could not be checked due to seasonal reasons, this would lead to an unacceptable increase in the costs of control of the Member States.
Amendment 24
ARTICLE 1, POINT 3
Article 44, paragraph 3 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
Except in case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, these parcels shall be at the farmer's disposal on the 15 June of the year of submission of the aid application.Except in case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, these parcels shall be at the farmer's disposal on the latest date for submission applicable in the Member State concerned of the year of submission of the aid application.Justification
The latest date of submission applicable in the Member State concerned is a better identification date. Otherwise it would be impossible for farmers in a Member State where the latest date of submission is before 15 June to submit a correct application if a parcel were sold during the period between the latest date of submission in a Member State and 15 June.
Amendment 25
ARTICLE 1, POINT 5, POINT (A)
Article 143 b, paragraph 5, subparagraph 1, new sentence (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
Except in case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, these parcels shall be at the farmer's disposal on the 15 June of the year of submission of the aid application.Except in case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances, these parcels shall be at the farmer's disposal on the latest date for submission applicable in the Member State concerned of the year of submission of the aid application.Justification
The latest date of submission applicable in the Member State concerned is a better identification date. Otherwise it would be impossible for farmers in a Member State where the latest date of submission is before 15 June to submit a correct application if a parcel were sold during the period between the latest date of submission in a Member State and 15 June.
Amendment 26
ARTICLE 1, POINT 5, POINT (B)
Article 143 b, paragraph 6, subparagraph 3 (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
As from 1 January 2005 and until 31 December 2008 the application of Articles3, 4, 6, 7 and9 shall be optional for the new Member States insofar as those provisions relate to statutory management requirements. As from 1January2009 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII according to the following timetable:As from 1 January 2005 and until 31 December 2008 the application of Articles3, 4, 6, 7 and9 shall be optional for the new Member States insofar as those provisions relate to statutory management requirements. As from 1January2009 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII according to the following timetable:(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from 1January2009;(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from 1January2009;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2010;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2011;(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2011.(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2013.However, for Bulgaria and Romania, the application of Articles3, 4, 6, 7 and9 shall be optional until 31December2011 insofar as those provisions relate to statutory management requirements. As from 1January2012 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII according to the following timetable:However, for Bulgaria and Romania, the application of Articles3, 4, 6, 7 and9 shall be optional until 31December2011 insofar as those provisions relate to statutory management requirements. As from 1January2012 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII according to the following timetable:(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from 1January2012;(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from 1January2012;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2013;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2014;(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2014.(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2016.New Member States may apply this option also in the case where they decide to terminate the application of the single area payment scheme before the end of the period of application provided for in paragraph 9.New Member States may apply this option also in the case where they decide to terminate the application of the single area payment scheme before the end of the period of application provided for in paragraph 9.
Amendment 27
ARTICLE 1, POINT 5, POINT (C)
Article 143 b, paragraph 9, first sentence (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
For any new Member States the single area payment scheme shall be available for a period of application until the end of 2010. For any new Member States the single area payment scheme shall be available for a period of application until the end of 2013. Justification
It is economically hardly possible to justify for the majority of NMS to change the present direct payment system of SAPS to SPS model starting from year 2010 instead of 2013. In order to start the SPS system in 2010 the NMS should already begin their preparatory work spending huge amount of money for the system that might function only for 2-3 years. This will cause additional and unnecessary financial burden for Member States that will obtain their 100% direct payments no sooner than in year 2013.
Amendment 28
ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 A (new)
Article 145, point (m) (Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)
(5a) In Article 145, point (m) is replaced by the following:
"(m) rules on the administrative and on-the-spot checks and the checks by remote sensing. In the case of controls pursuant to Title II Chapter 1 the rules laid down shall provide for regular and sufficient advance notice of on-the-spot checks where this does not jeopardise the actual goal of the controls. The rules shall also provide for incentives for Member States to put in place a system of well-functioning and coherent controls."Justification
There is consensus that, where possible, on-the-spot-controls are necessary, as it is not just and reasonable to expect a modern farmer to have the time available for extensive and time-consuming controls without advance notice. Announced controls shall be limited to aspects where advance notice will allow farmers to manipulate the result.
Amendment 29
ARTICLE 2
Article 51, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2 (Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005)
The derogation provided for in the first subparagraph shall apply until 31December2008. As from 1January2009 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII of Regulation (EC) No1782/2003 according to the following timetable:The derogation provided for in the first subparagraph shall apply until 31December2008. As from 1January2009 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII of Regulation (EC) No1782/2003 according to the following timetable:(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from1January2009;(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from1January2009;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2010;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2011;(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2011.(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2013.However, for Bulgaria and Romania, the application of Articles3, 4, 6, 7 and9 of Regulation (EC) No1782/2003 shall be optional until 31December2011 insofar as those provisions relate to statutory management requirements. As from 1January2012 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII of Regulation (EC) No1782/2003 according to the following timetable:However, for Bulgaria and Romania, the application of Articles3, 4, 6, 7 and9 of Regulation (EC) No1782/2003 shall be optional until 31December2011 insofar as those provisions relate to statutory management requirements. As from 1January2012 a farmer receiving payments under the single area payment scheme shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in AnnexIII of Regulation (EC) No1782/2003 according to the following timetable:(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from 1January2012;(a) requirements referred to in point A shall apply from 1January2012;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2013;(b) requirements referred to in point B shall apply from 1January2014;(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2014.(c) requirements referred to in point C shall apply from 1January2016.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction:
The introduction of cross compliance was a key element of the 2003 reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. Cross compliance was made a precondition to public support for farmers. Herewith changing the first pillar in the direction of rural development policy, as farmers are being paid for services they render to the wider society. Farmers are being compensated for complying with Community legislation in the field of environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare, which are generally very strict compared to standards in the rest of the world.
Though supported widely cross compliance has from the beginning encountered criticism for the bureaucratic burden linked with its application for farmers as well as for Member States administrations.
In addition it is very difficult to concentrate controls with one control body as many different sectors and specialists need to be involved. Commissions' implementation rules foresee no advance notice of controls, which, taken into consideration the extent and length of controls as well as today's farming conditions, places a heavy burden on farmers shoulders.
About 68% of cases of non-compliance were considered minor and led to sanctions of 1% of direct payments.. 71% of cases of non-compliance concerned labelling and registration of cattle (mostly loss of one ear mark or cases where cattle were registered centrally but not in books kept on the farm, therefore not putting into danger retracebility). Implementation rules foresaw no procedures for minor cases of non-compliance nor did the system foresee a possibility not to forego sanction in these cases. The sanction system was therefore often deemed disproportionate by farmers as well as discriminating against certain types of farms, notably farms holding animals.
Cross compliance is implemented quite differently from one Member State to the other and advisory systems for farmers often do not function in a way to alleviate the burden on farmers.
The Commission presented a 'Report on the application of the system of cross-compliance' (COM (2007) 147 fin.) which summarised the criticism.
The proposed change of regulation (EC) 1782/2003 is part of the Commission effort to implement the conclusions of its report. Changes to Commissions implementing rules are presently discussed with the Council.
Rapporteurs Conclusions
The rapporteur supports the system of cross compliance as he believes it to be an important instrument for the justification of public support to farmers.
Yet, it is clear that a complicated system like cross compliance cannot function without the support of the farmers concerned. Therefore the cross compliance system itself, as well as the legislation falling under the scope of cross compliance should be simplified, deregulated and improved continuously.
Looking at the numbers presented by the Commission in its report it is clear that most controlled farms do comply with set standards, the overwhelming number of cases of non-compliance concerning minor or negligible if not superfluous legal requirements.
The rapporteur therefore supports fully any effort to simplify cross compliance as long as the goals pursued are not put into danger. The Commissions proposal is a clear step forward.
Nonetheless some changes are being proposed as to underline that simplification, deregulation, improvement and harmonisation is a continuous process. I therefore proposed a regular reporting by the Commission focusing also on the costs of the whole controlling system, in order to enable proper cost benefit analysis in the future.
If all cases of minor non-compliance led to increased controls as foreseen by the Commission this would neither be proportionate nor help Member States to cope with the administrative work-load. Minor changes to the Commission proposal are therefore presented.
Some standards, especially on Nature-2000, are not adapted to a system of systematic-on-the spot-controls. It should therefore be considered to replace systematic controls with a well functioning system of cross-checks (in case of Nature-2000 almost all cases of non-compliance were detected through cross-checks anyway).
New Member States that are struggling to put into place a farm administration covering all demands of Europe's extensive farm legislation and who do not yet receive the full amount of public support should be granted a period of phasing-in, shortly longer than proposed by the Commission and in line with the phasing-in of direct payments.
Conclusion
The report does not cover all aspects of cross-compliance as many questions are only dealt with in Commission implementation rules and some aspects clearly need to be discussed further. An obligation to report regularly will make sure that cross compliance will stay on the agenda.
It is also clear that all parties involved, not only the Commission, but especially Member States need to make sure to put into place a system that fulfils demands of society but is as simple as possible.
An extension of the current set of standards, as discussed by some in connection with the upcoming health-check of the CAP, could be detrimental to the system overall considering that we are still in an early stage of implementation. In addition, new administrative and compliance costs linked to direct payments should be eyed with suspicion in the light of decreasing aid for farmers.
PROCEDURE
TitleDirect support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)ReferencesCOM(2007)0484 - C6-0283/2007 - 2007/0177(CNS)Date of consulting Parliament13.9.2007Committee responsible
Date announced in plenaryAGRI
24.9.2007Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)
Date announced in plenaryBUDG
24.9.2007Not delivering opinions
Date of decisionBUDG
24.10.2007Rapporteur(s)
Date appointedJan Mulder
12.9.2007Discussed in committee11.9.20078.10.200721.11.2007Date adopted21.11.2007Result of final vote+:
:
0:25
1
2Members present for the final voteVincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Bernadette Bourzai, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Albert De, Duarte Freitas, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Diamanto Manolakou, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Migu l e z R a m o s , N e i l P a r i s h , M a r a I s a b e l S a l i n a s G a r c a , A g n e s S c h i e r h u b e r , C z e s Ba w A d a m S i e k i e r s k i , P e t y a S t a v r e v a , D o n a t o T o m m a s o V e r a l d i S u b s t i t u t e ( s ) p r e s e n t f o r t h e f i n a l v o t e P i l a r A y u s o , K a t e r i n a B a t z e l i , E s t h e r D e L a n g e , J a n M u l d e r , J a m e s N i c h o l s o n , Z d z i s Ba w Z b i g n i e w P o d k a Ds k i
P E <