REPORT on the CAP 'Health Check'
28.2.2008 - (2007/2195(INI))
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Lutz Goepel
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the CAP 'Health Check'
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled 'Preparing for the "Health Check" of the CAP reform' (COM(2007)0722),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers[1],
– having regard to its position of 11 December 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)[2],
– having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2007 on rising feed and food prices[3],
– having regard to its position of 26 September 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards set aside for the year 2008[4],
– having regard its position of 14 February 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005[5],
– having regard to its position of 19 May 2005 on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013,[6]
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) between the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, and in particular Annexes I and III thereto and Declarations Nos. 3 and 9 thereof,[7]
– having regard to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded[8],
– having regard to Council Decision of 22 March 2004 adapting the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, following the reform of the common agricultural policy[9],
– having regard to the mandate given by the European Council to the European Commission for the negotiations in the field of agriculture as described in "The EC´s proposal for Modalities in the WTO Agriculture Negotiations",
– having regard to Article 33(2) of the EC Treaty, which has been incorporated, unamended, into the Treaty of Lisbon,
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6‑0047/2008),
A. whereas agriculture, together with the downstream agricultural product processing and marketing industry, is still one of the biggest industries in the EU;
B. whereas a common EU agricultural policy (CAP), based on an economic, ecological and social European agricultural model guaranteeing sustainability and food security, will also be necessary in the future; whereas, however, the successful introduction of reforms must be continued, including further boosting rural development,
C. whereas in future the CAP will need to remove the current obstacles to young people entering agriculture by establishing transfer from one generation to the next as one of its priorities,
D. whereas reducing bureaucracy in the agricultural sector through the introduction of transparent, simpler and less cumbersome provisions would lead to both lower costs for agricultural holdings and producers and lower administrative expenditure,
E. whereas the CAP must evolve to deal with wide differences in agricultural and regional structure, at the same time responding to new challenges such as climate change, soil and water protection, greater openness to the world market and the provision of biomass, raw materials and renewable energy; whereas it needs to be equipped with sufficient resources and to maintain the original objectives of the CAP, as recently reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon, which may be summarised as the production of healthy food products of high quality which can ensure supplies for all Europeans at reasonable prices and can enable farmers to maintain their income levels,
F. whereas the system of direct support has, largely successfully, undergone fundamental reform on three occasions since 1992, and all the major market organisations, with the exception of the dairy sector, have done so since 2004,
G. whereas all developed countries have an agricultural policy; whereas new circumstances, such as the increasing world population, climate change, increasing demand for energy, a reduction in price support and greater openness to the world market are leading, on the one hand, to a rise in market prices for agricultural products in the EU and, on the other hand, to considerably wider fluctuations in yields and greater price volatility, and it is therefore more necessary than ever to continue with a common agricultural policy,
H. whereas food security (understood in both the quantitative and the qualitative sense) will remain one of the key aims of the CAP, alongside the preservation of ecosystems, without which there can be no sensible, sustainable production, and optimisation of land use throughout the Union,
I. whereas the EU has made a considerable effort to reduce agricultural spending in relation to the total budget, as a proportion of which it has fallen from almost 80% in the 1970s to 33% by the end of the current financial perspective, while the total area given over to farming has increased by 37 % since 2003, owing to the accession of new Member States,
J. whereas the Heads of State and Government made commitments at the Berlin Summit regarding the guarantee of total expenditure for the first pillar of the CAP until 2013 ,
K. whereas the 2004 Act of Accession provides derogations from the application of certain rules of CAP to the new Member States in order to offset the lower level of direct payments,
L. whereas there is, in some regions, no alternative to some traditional types of agricultural production, which often constitute key agricultural activities for the regions in question and must therefore be preserved and supported at all costs , on imperative environmental and regional policy grounds and in order to safeguard the economic and social fabric; ,especially in view of the CAP's role in the so-called convergence regions, where agriculture and stockbreeding tend to be of major importance as an instrument of economic development and job creation,
M. whereas farmers in the EU must be guaranteed stability so as to ensure that their expectations and investments are not defrauded, while in some sectors the regulatory systems need to allow for medium- and long-term forecasts,
N. whereas the European legislator must avoid discrimination against European farmers and stockbreeders both within the EU itself and vis‑à‑vis competitors from third countries, or use suitable instruments to create equal opportunities for European farmers and stockbreeders (level playing-field); whereas, in particular, it should be ensured that the quality, health, environmental, animal welfare and other standards with which EU farmers are required to comply are also observed by anyone exporting agricultural products to the EU,
O. whereas the aims of the CAP are formulated in Article 33 of the EC Treaty and , subject to the full ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, all essential legal and budgetary decisions concerning the CAP will require the approval of the European Parliament,
P. whereas the EU needs to maintain its food sovereignty and not become dependent on food imports, since this could have adverse repercussions for food security and give rise to problems of supply,
Q. whereas there is a need for more detailed reflection on the evolution of the markets and its repercussions on the internal market, given the international context regarding raw material production and prices,
Introduction
1. Insists on upholding the concept of a sustainable, competitive and multifunctional agriculture, which maintains the specific character of each sector and area of production and whose basic objective is to supply the population with healthy and safe products, in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices for the consumer;
2. Believes that the 2003 CAP reform was, in key aspects, a great success as it markedly improved the transparency and efficiency of the CAP and the responsibility and market orientation of farmers, and believes that this process must be continued on the basis of respect for the undertaking given by the Heads of State and Government in December 2002 to maintain the first-pillar agricultural funds in full until 2013; points out that, in return, the administration of the CAP and the many EU Directives and Regulations which have an impact on farmers must undergo further, significant simplification so as to relieve the burden on farmers, albeit this simplification must not lead to a renationalisation of the CAP or to a larger cut in the aids received by farmers in the EU;
3. Welcomes, therefore, the technical adjustments arising from the Commission’s Communication concerning a health check of the common agricultural policy aimed at ensuring that the 2003 reform works, and calls on the Commission to underwrite the basic economic principle of stability within the CAP;
4. Calls on the Commission, with a view to future reforms, to carry out a cost-benefit study of the CAP in terms of food security, self-sufficiency of supply and the preservation of rural communities; calls on the Commission to undertake an analysis of the potential cost to the consumer of higher food prices arising from increased world demand vis-à-vis the expenditure represented today by agricultural policy for the public;
5. Believes that the challenge for the EU as regards the WTO negotiations is to match any future constraints in a way that maximizes its domestic welfare; stresses that it is for the EU to make the best use of the available flexibility, e.g. in the case of “sensitive products”; stresses though that the condition for any WTO agreement on agriculture is to reach an agreement on intellectual property covering geographical indications;
6. Considers, however, that the European Union must still have sufficient instruments to be able to safeguard against market and supply crises in the agricultural and health sectors in the future;
7. Stresses the need to proceed to the recognition, in an effective fashion and by suitable means (financial and others), of agriculture's productive, environmental and rural functions;
8. Supports, in principle, the integration of general aims into the CAP, in particular those of food security, territorial coherence, the protection of consumers, the environment, the climate, animals, renewable energies and biodiversity; points out, however, that this must form part of a sustainable development policy combining economic performance, the conservation of natural environments and resources, local development and social justice; points out; however, that the Heads of State and Government have confirmed the aims of the CAP by retaining the substance of Article 33 of the Treaty of Rome in the Treaty of Lisbon signed on 13 December 2007;
9. Stresses that the integration of general aims into the CAP must not call into question the production of agricultural and livestock products in the mountain, disadvantaged, remote and island regions of the EU, which are based on extensive production systems, produce in large measure for the local market but also sell agricultural and livestock products on Member States' national markets; 10. Takes the view that, if the EU introduces stringent requirements for EU farmers and producers, it should ensure that those same requirements are met by anyone exporting agricultural products to the EU and that the European Union must push for the inclusion of the general aims referred to above in the WTO negotiations;
11. Rejects a reduction in the total budget of the first pillar for the period until 2013 and points out that, at a time of sudden upheavals in agricultural and stockbreeding markets and with ongoing reforms at their mid-term stage, reliability, security and, in particular, respect for the decisions taken in 2003 are crucial concerns for farmers;
12. Rejects any discrimination according to farm size and legal form in the direct payments but acknowledges at the same time that all redistribution of aids in the first pillar must be based on an holistic assessment of its effects on social and regional cohesion, employment, environment, competitiveness and innovation;
13. Calls for aid to be reserved exclusively for farmers actively involved in agriculture;
14. Points out that the Commission Communication of 20 November 2007 pays too little attention to the problems, needs and challenges facing the agricultural sector of the 12 new Member States, and urges that this be taken into account in the forthcoming reforms , and that targeted additional funding for restructuring and modernization also be considered;
Direct payments
15. Considers that direct payments will remain vitally necessary in the future as a basic income guarantee, not only in the event of market failures but also for the provision of public goods by farmers and as compensation for Europe's environmental, food safety and security, traceability, animal welfare and social standards, which are very high by international comparison;
16. Notes, however, that 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;
17. Calls therefore for a report by the Commission, which should assess the extra costs which farmers face due to their compliance with the common standards in the field of environment, animal welfare and food safety in comparison with their main competitors on the world market; the report should further compare these costs with the actual height of direct payments received by farmers; the report should be sufficiently specific for different kinds of farmers in the separate Member States; the report should also be published before the decision-making procedures for the common agricultural policy after 2013 start;
18. Welcomes the proposal of the Commission to allow Member States on a voluntary basis more flexibility in moving towards a separation of direct payments from historical reference values and towards a flatter system, and calls on the Commission to clarify, together with the submission of the legislative proposal, whether in view of good experiences in the Member States a faster transition to an area-based regional or national single premium of decoupled payments would be feasible for Member States on a voluntary basis by 2013; however those Member States with full (or partial) decoupling based on historical payments may choose to leave this system in place until 2013; calls on the Commission to undertake a study of the potential impact of an area-based premium, in particular with regard to farms with high livestock densities on comparatively small farm area;
19. Stresses that, by opting for a transition to a regional model, account should be taken of the difficulties arising from the particular nature of specific rights for livestock farming, i.e. the fact that some livestock farmers do not have any or only a small area of agricultural land, and also the fact that extensive livestock farming in many regions within the EU is based on collective use of commonly held grazing land, which belongs to municipalities, communities or government bodies;
20. Believes that, given the increasing number of sectors covered by the SPR and in the light of the experience obtained in implementing that regime, certain decisions and implementing rules appear to be unnecessarily rigid and complicated, and that it therefore seems necessary to redefine the rules, scope and suitable management patterns of its implementation in those Member States and sectors which so wish;
21. Considers that decoupling of direct payments has in general led to a successful market orientation of the European agriculture, given the increased effect on income and greater autonomy in decision-making on the part of farmers and the associated simplification of the CAP; and calls on the Commission to push through the decoupling policy at a faster pace, unless this were to result in considerable social-economic and/or environmental drawbacks in particular regions, in particular the least favoured regions; notes however, that further impact assessments are to be prepared in order to comprehensively determine the effects of decoupling for specific regions, for production and the land market;
22. Believes that in general decoupling direct aid from agricultural production can in the long term contribute to reducing the negative environmental impact of European agriculture, provided that it is accompanied by strengthened support for sustainable practices in rural development;
23. Points out, that any further decoupling should only take place after careful consideration of the potential effects, including but not limited to the balance between the different agricultural sectors, the increased danger of monocultures, and the threat to labour-intensive agricultural sectors;
24. Recognises that the situation regarding headage-based premiums, including milk premiums, is not comparable, in view of serious market distortions caused, inter alia, by rising feed prices, which have a greater effect on certain livestock production systems practised in the EU;
25. Considers that, in certain regions, such as mountain regions and other regions with specific difficulties (islands, dry and humid areas, outermost regions etc.), where there are no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive livestock farming, a complete decoupling of headage-based premiums may be accompanied by substantial social, economic and environmental drawbacks following changing input prices, which are not compatible with the goals of the Treaty; calls for accurate reference data to be used as a base for awarding payment entitlements in case (partial) decoupling takes place;
26. Is aware of the key role played by livestock farming in European agriculture, especially in certain countries and regions with large scale animal husbandry and, as a result, considers that partially maintaining coupled animal premiums for the time being would be reasonable; recognizes the eminent role these very successful farm holdings play in the regional economy; recalls that Articles 47 to 50 of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 contain a solution for high livestock densities that should be further explored for the period after 2013;
27. Considers, however, that this in itself will not be enough; welcomes, therefore, as a first step in the right direction, the announced amendment of Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Article 69'); but notes that this instrument should not be used as a disguised way of introducing voluntary modulation and a double strengthening of the second pillar; furthermore, the level-playing-field between Member States should be respected as much as possible;
28. Calls for appropriations under Article 69 to be allocated primarily for measures to promote territorial coherence and strengthen individual sectors, in particular measures to prevent agricultural production and especially livestock farming from being abandoned in areas where this would have significantly detrimental effects on nature, the countryside or regional development (in particular mountain areas, wetlands or areas affected by water scarcity, other especially disadvantaged areas and grassland in extreme locations), measures designed to restructure and boost key agricultural sectors (e.g. the dairy , beef cattle and sheep sectors), and area‑based environmental measures (e.g. organic farming) which to date have not been included in the second pillar and risk management;
29. Considers that the budget for the revised Article 69 could, subject to the results of an impact assessment and on a voluntary basis, cover up to 12% of direct payments per Member State;
30. Calls on the Commission to submit proposals for common rules in respect of Member States' application of Article 69 in order to avoid barriers to trade and distortion of competition as far as possible, incorporating them, where necessary, within the common organisation of the market; also calls for all measures requiring the application of Article 69 to be notified to the Commission; finally, calls on the Commission to draw up an impact analysis, which should be annexed to its legislative proposal;
31. Considers that measures designed to strengthen individual sectors should in principle be funded under the first pillar in the long term; considers, therefore, that the Commission must carry out a thorough evaluation of the results of the implementation of the revised Article 69 in preparation for post‑2013 reform;
32. Calls on the Commission, in addition, to submit, by 30 June 2010, a report setting out comprehensively how Community production of arable products as well as security of supply for livestock farming in Europe can be safeguarded in the long term with regard to the different production systems within the EU, multi-functionality and regional aspects (such as mountain, disadvantaged and small island areas); considers that the report should also deal with the question of how far the aims of the CAP, including as they relate to sustainability and social aspects, can be achieved in a more efficient, targeted way by means of decoupled, indirect support, e.g. premiums for extensive grassland, pasture land a special milk and meat production payment, premiums for stables which are constructed and furnished in line with common animal welfare and environmental standards, or specific instruments for crisis management; stresses that the report needs to answer the question of whether or to what extent in view of the specific need of regions with intensive animal holdings, coupled animal premiums or solutions close to Articles 47 to 50 of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 will be needed even after 2013;
33. Recommends that those new Member States who so wish should be permitted to apply the single area payment scheme (SAPS) until 2013, and calls on the Commission to examine whether implementation of the SAPS could be further simplified by amending the rules on areas eligible for aid;
34. Believes that all budgetary appropriations earmarked for CAP implementation that are saved or are not utilised should be spent within the CAP;
35. Considers that direct payments will also be required after 2013 but that these need to be based on new objective criteria, and notably on direct employment generated by farms, or be developed more clearly in the direction of a reward for farmers for land stewardship or compensation for certain effective services of general interest or for specific standards, including animal welfare standards, and that the extent to which the significant differences between regional area payments within Europe and the different funding for the second pillar are appropriate, should be examined; calls on the Commission to propose suitable measures designed to ensure that the full rate of direct payments is received only by persons and undertakings which are actually involved in agriculture;
Simplification, cross-compliance and market orientation
36. Supports, after an appropriate phasing-out period, the gradual integration of production-based payment schemes which are smaller and therefore very cumbersome to administer (dried fodder, hemp, flax, potato starch) into the single area payment scheme, unless this were to result in considerable socio-economic and/or environmental drawbacks in particular regions; if necessary, for reasons of regional policy, accompanying measures should be provided for in accordance with Article 69; calls on the Commission for a case-by case analysis of its economic and regional impact, which demonstrates that this is the appropriate solution and identifies the necessary timeframe for its implementation; stresses that decoupling should not jeopardize the very existence of the forms of production concerned;
37. Supports the immediate abolition of the set-aside obligation, a volume control instrument which has lost its significance in a decoupled direct payment system and is extremely cumbersome to administer, and the conversion of set-aside entitlements into normal entitlements;
38. Considers that any environmental advantages of set-aside can be better and more directly obtained by Member States through measures under the second pillar;
39. Calls for the gradual abolition of the energy crop premium in the course of a phasing-out period, because energy crop premiums are very cumbersome to administer and have little or no energy policy advantages in the current market environment;
40. Calls for the appropriations not used as a result of abolishing the energy crop premium to be made available, inter alia, specifically for accompanying measures in connection with the organisation of the milk market, especially in mountain areas and other areas with specific difficulties;
41. Calls on the Commission to make unused appropriations under the agriculture budget which were earmarked for market management measures such as intervention, export subsidies or storage available primarily on the basis of Article 69 for strengthening the economy in rural areas, in particular agricultural holdings, in keeping with rural development objectives;
42. Considers that direct payments without cross-compliance (CC) can no longer be justified; emphasises in that respect that the new Member States must be assisted by the EU in the application of the CC rules in the course of a transitional period;
43. Rejects any widening of the scope of CC, in view of reductions in direct payments, as long as Member States and the Commission fail to make substantial progress in simplifying and harmonising monitoring rules and the Commission does not present an overview of the costs connected with CC to farmers; and refers in this context to its position of 11 December 2007;
44. Considers that CC should be restricted to checks on essential standards of the European model of production and standards to which systematic and harmonised checks in the different Member States can be applied;
45. Calls for a greater effectiveness of CC in relation to its objectives and a more homogeneous implementation across the Member States; calls on the Commission to develop clearer guidelines to assist the Member States in implementation;
46. Calls for an end to disproportionate burdens placed on livestock farming by CC; and calls in particular for a critical examination of certain hygiene and identification standards (e.g. ear tags);
47. Could envisage a modest adaptation of the requirements to maintain GAEC and sustainable land management with regard to altered environmental and production conditions (climate change, biomass), if the introduction of the new requirements in a comparable way throughout Europe were guaranteed;
48. Considers that Member States applying the SAPS should be entitled to implement the CC principle progressively, in order to be able properly to prepare for the introduction of the necessary control systems and convince farmers of the need to meet the appointed standards;
49. Calls on the Commission to press on with the simplification of the CAP and, in so doing, regularly to review items of legislation to determine whether they are necessary and whether their actual provisions are expedient; in that connection it should propose additional measures, such as simplified transfer rules for payment entitlements in the event of non-activation, merging of minimum payment entitlements, introduction of a single premium in the case of small recipients, simplification, reduction or abolition of the rules governing the national reserve, depending on the transition to the regional/national single area payment, waiving the cancellation of payment entitlements in the event of non-use, abolition of handwritten registries for cattle and other livestock;
50. Calls further on the Member States to ensure timely payments and on the Commission to allow prepayments to be made to farmers;
51. Calls on the Commission to create the necessary mechanisms to ensure that third-country imports meet the same standards as Community products in terms of conditionality, food safety, etc;
Safety net
52. Considers that, in view of the anticipated increase in environmental and climate dangers and in the risk of epidemics and considerable price fluctuations in the agricultural markets, additional risk prevention is of vital importance as a safety net;
53. Recalls that market-oriented production, appropriate crop rotation, diversification, financial market instruments, supply chain contracts and insurance, are all important ways in which farmers can protect themselves against risk, and that, in principle, responsibility for appropriate risk prevention lies with farmers;
54. Believes that in order to address market failure, the intervention system should be kept and reformed into a strict safety net for exceptional circumstances with rules based on world market trends;
55. Supports, therefore, the Commission’s proposal to lower the intervention thresholds for market crops to zero, maintaining an - if appropriate reduced - intervention threshold only in the case of wheat;
56. Considers that private sector or mixed insurance schemes, such as multi-hazard insurance, must be developed as a matter of urgency, in view of increasing risks; is aware of the fact that this can only succeed with public contributions to the financing; underlines the fact that the introduction of these schemes must not under any circumstances endanger the level-playing-field between the different Member States; calls on the Commission to consider introducing or supporting a Community-wide reinsurance system in the future, with a view to dealing with problems arising from climate-related or environmental disasters;
57. Recalls that almost all relevant third countries operate this kind of State-aided system;
58. Considers that, as a result, a first step should be the creation of sources of financing for the national or regional funding of risk insurance schemes starting in 2009, to take account of the various potential risks in Europe; the Commission should examine the extent to which producer groups, sectoral and interprofessional associations and private insurance companies can be incorporated into the schemes;
59. Considers that, in view of the completely different conditions in the individual sectors, different sectoral solutions (comparable to the solution in the fruit and vegetable sector) are probably preferable to horizontal approaches;
60. Considers that these measures should be partly funded under the first pillar on the basis of Article 69, since they fall within the scope of market policy;
61. Considers that risk management and risk prevention measures must not be allowed to lead to the reintroduction of support measures based on production;
62. Considers, therefore, that the Commission must develop a common framework for the funding of risk management systems by Member States, on the basis of respect for the systems currently in use or approved by the Commission in the past, in order to exclude, as far as possible, effects that distort competition and trade, if necessary by establishing common rules within the single market organisations;
63. Calls on the Commission to submit, by 30 June 2010, a comprehensive analysis of existing risk management systems and possibilities for their further development at Community level after 2013;
Modulation/capping ceiling/degressivity/minimum threshold
64. Points out that the imposition of degressive ceilings, modulation and budgetary discipline may, if the Commission’s proposals are implemented, have a substantial redistributive impact in certain regions;
65. Points out that there is as yet no impact assessment of the effects of further modulation, degressivity and minimum thresholds on the labour market in rural areas and regional cohesion; for that reason, an assessment of the first pillar must be carried out;
66. Stresses that the lower limits proposed by the Commission could have a non negligible impact in some Member States and may affect the distribution of CAP payments between Member States, whereas the upper limit implies a transfer of some EUR 500 million from the first to the second pillar; recalls that there are serious doubts remaining regarding the present cost effectiveness of second pillar measures; believes, therefore, that savings coming from the possible application of this measure should remain within the first pillar;
67. Rejects the Commission proposal on degressivity (with a reduction of up to 45%) in its present form, as there is no clear link between the size and wealth of a farm and it fails to factor in the workforce needed to maintain a large scale agricultural holding; the Commission proposal would put large farms or associations at an unjustifiable disadvantage and lead to a reduction in the workforce and the destruction of well-developed, competitive structures and would result in the splitting of farms purely for support-related reasons, this which would cause structural fracturing in some regions of Europe;
68. Considers that degressivity and/or the establishment of maximum ceilings can only be acceptable on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the consequences for the job market and regional policies, and only if it became possible for account to be taken of the number of full-time workers covered by social security or certain farm structures (farms run by several families, cooperative organisations, etc.) or the total farm labour costs, with a view to degressivity being reduced; calls on the Commission to bear in mind that smaller farms forming a union under a single legal personality in order to create economies of scale and become more competitive should not be disadvantaged;
69. Calls for any funds resulting from degressivity to be kept in the regions or Member State concerned where they will be, for example, used to finance measures in accordance with Article 69 or under the second pillar; calls for these funds to be focused directly on farmers;
70. Supports the proposed raising of the minimum thresholds, also in the light of the 2006 annual report of the Court of Auditors, which could be set at one ha or the corresponding amount of EUR 250, combined with the introduction of a single premium or a minimum lump sum for small recipients; however, in duly justified cases of major differences in agricultural structures, Member States should be allowed the option of setting the minimum thresholds;
71. Does, however, support the efforts of the Commission to secure appropriate financing for a sustainable policy for rural areas under the second pillar of the CAP, albeit that objective must not be attained at the expense of the first pillar;
72. Points out that, in view of the already drastic nature of individual reductions, a further reduction in direct payments of 8 % cannot, in the absence of an impact assessment, be accepted;
73. Considers that, in the light of widespread calls for a reduction in large payments, a progressive modulation could be envisaged, on the basis of the available information and on the basis of an impact assessment taking into account farm structure (associations etc), farm labour and/or labour cost and specific production types in the different direct payment systems (for example: specific problems of farms and regions with high density live stock on comparatively small areas).
The funds from the progressive modulation are to be distributed according to the prevailing rules governing modulation funds and to remain in the regions or Member State in which they accrue;
The European Parliament could envisage a progressive modulation in the following form:
Direct payments of EUR 10 000 - 100 000 - 1% (for the whole 2009-2013 period)
Direct payments of EUR 100 000 - 200 000 - 2% (for the whole 2009-2013 period)
Direct payments of EUR 200 000 - 300 000 - 3% (for the whole 2009-2013 period)
Direct payments of over EUR 300 000 - 4% (for the whole 2009-2013 period)
74. Calls for voluntary modulation to be replaced by compulsory modulation;
75. Considers that modulation funds should be made available primarily using the LEADER method and for measures aimed at combating the loss of biodiversity, risk insurance, adapting to climate change, measures targeting the sustainable use of biomass, accompanying measures for structural reform (e.g. organisation of the milk market), safeguarding production in mountainous or small island regions and other similarly disadvantaged areas, quality assurance including animal welfare measures, organic farming, disposal measures and adapting to technical advances; calls for all these measures to be targeted directly at farmers;
Milk market organisation
76. Is aware that the current system of milk quotas in its present form is unlikely to be continued after 2015, and calls on the Commission to carry out a comprehensive examination of how the organisation of the milk market might look in future; calls on the Commission to put forward for the period after 2015 a convincing plan for the milk sector that guarantees the continuation of milk production in Europe, including in mountainous areas, outlying areas, and other areas with specific difficulties;
77. Draws the Commission's attention to its decisions in connection with the mini-milk package concerning market measures and the milk fund;
78. Calls on all parties involved to use the time up until 2015 in order to stabilise or strengthen market positions, and ensure a 'soft landing' for the European dairy sector, preferably by structural quota increases;
79. Calls for the milk quota to be adjusted to the market in response to changes in demand on world markets; considers, therefore, that quotas should be increased by 2% in the milk year 2008/2009 on a voluntary basis for each Member State; calls on the Commission to allocate the increase to the national reserve; calls for an annual review of the quota;
80. Calls, furthermore, for a substantial reduction in the super-levy for the 2009/2010 milk year and further decreases in subsequent years in order to counterbalance a rise in quota prices and for Europe‑wide ex‑post offsetting of quotas in order to enable quotas to be better utilised;
81. Calls for specific accompanying measures to prevent the dairy industry in mountainous areas and other areas with particular difficulties from being abandoned in cases where there are no alternatives to the traditional dairy industry or where abandoning agricultural activity would lead to the loss of areas of natural significance;
82. Considers that sufficient funds to maintain the dairy industry – especially in mountainous areas, outermost regions (such as the Azores) and other regions with comparable difficulties – must be made available, primarily by means of Article 69, e.g. by means of top‑ups to area payments (comparable to measures in the sugar sector), in the form of premiums for dairy cattle, for grassland or extensive grazing, of a specific milk payment or special regional programmes to reinforce or restructure the sector and to promote specific high-quality products;
83. Considers that strengthening of producer associations, sectoral and inter-professional organisations could constitute a further element of the revised Article 69;
84. Asks the Commission and the Member States to examine the possibility of a non-linear increase in national quotas with a view to introducing additional increases for Member States where the production quotas have traditionally been in deficit;
85. Considers that in order to finance these measures it is necessary to create a specific fund (Milk Fund), which could be partly financed from the savings arising from the reform of the sector;
Other matters
86. Points out that the strengths, and the future, of European agriculture are to be found in regional, traditional and other recognised high quality products and value added products;
87. Calls on the Commission, in this connection, to examine the possibility of introducing a 'European mark' to identify the quality of EU agricultural and food production on the international markets;
88. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to present a comprehensive plan for improving the marketing of high quality European products at home and abroad, e.g. by means of information and promotion campaigns, support for the formation and development of the activities of producer organisations or other forms of sectoral organisation and introducing targeted labelling which sets out, in particular, the origin of the agricultural raw materials used and that is clearer and more transparent for consumers;
89. Calls on the Commission to increase, as part of a budget adjustment process, the appropriations earmarked for information and promotion campaigns on the internal market and external markets;
90. Calls on the Commission to consider the need for a genuine communication policy dealing with the CAP which would be designed to reduce the gulf between the agricultural world and society and which would not function solely as a promotional and advertising mechanism;
91. Considers that producer and inter-professional organisations require further bolstering and support, particularly in Member States in which there are only a small number of such organisations, so as to give farmers a better market position towards retail and trade and, concurrently, quality assurance systems in the food production chain should be promoted, including alternatives to existing manufacturing practices;
92. Regrets that the Commission missed the opportunity to tackle more broadly the problems linked to increased imports of food and feed which do not correspond to EU standards and thus risk undermining the European Union’s achievements in environmental, animal welfare and social conditioning of public aid; calls on the Commission to propose measures to remedy this situation as soon as possible and to ensure compliance with Community environmental and health legislation;
93. Calls on the Commission to develop as a matter of urgency a comprehensive plan to push through European non-trade concerns in world trade talks, in particular the issue of the recognition and protection of geographical indications, animal welfare, the state of health of imported animal and plant products etc., so as to prevent unfair competition against European producers and to avoid the export of animal welfare and environmental problems to third countries; calls on the Commission to actively advocate in the WTO negotiations the concept of qualified market access with a view to promoting sustainability standards in agriculture;
94. Points out that European agriculture will not be a going concern in future without appropriate external protection; calls, therefore, for application of the same quality and safety standards to third-country products as to EU products;
95. Takes the view that the abolition of export subsidies should be combined with promotional activities conducted in third countries;
96. Recalls that in the context of climate change, two main policy challenges emerge for agriculture: the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change and the adaptation to climate change impacts; stresses that this means that agriculture faces a double challenge: reducing its own emissions while adapting to the expected impacts of global warming;
97. Stresses that climate change is not only an environmental but also a socio-economic problem and thus environmental concerns and efforts in the agricultural sector, one of the most vulnerable sectors that directly depend on climatic factors, should take into account the need to guarantee the economic and social viability of rural areas;
98. Recalls that agriculture’s contribution to the greenhouse effect (as a source of two powerful greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide) is limited and diminishing in the EU due to the implementation of measures already in place within the CAP framework such as CC, agri-environmental schemes and other rural development measures;
99. Calls on the Commission to examine the extent to which these achievements can be further improved by integrating agriculture into the Kyoto Mechanisms;
100. Considers that the impact of supplying renewable energy from agriculture should not be pursued one-sidedly to the detriment of livestock farming and of the food security of people in Europe and throughout the world, sustainability and biodiversity; calls on the Commission, therefore, to carry out an impact assessment of support measures for renewable energies in the context of food security and the environment; calls for appropriate funding for research and the introduction of recent and efficient energy technologies which exploit biomass to the full (e.g. second generation biofuels); strongly reiterates the fact that, in the short term, biogas plants based on animal-origin residues have the largest, most sustainable potential for growth in terms of providing additional energy from biomass;
101. Underlines the strong relationship between agricultural activity and water quality and quantity, and stresses that pressures from agriculture on the water environment need to be managed in a sustainable manner; believes that environmental legislation in combination with the 'polluter pays' principle should be the guiding principle for the effective achievement of sustainable water management and environmental objectives;
102. Considers that development of the system of agricultural payments must continue beyond 2013 and calls on the Commission to present, by 30 June 2010, not least in view of the fact that European farmers need long-term planning security, a comprehensive analysis of possible ways of reshaping the system, in particular by setting strategic objectives which reflect the development of European agriculture as a means of exploiting innovation, making good use of land, guaranteeing production quality, maintaining farmers’ incomes and safeguarding the environment and food security; calls on the Commission to analyse a thorough-going administrative simplification, in particular for annual premium payments of less than EUR 20 000 per recipient;
103. Points out that biodiversity is both affected, created and threatened by agriculture; considers that global, local and EU efforts are needed to protect the valuable ecosystem services that biodiversity provides, namely air and water purification, pollination of crops and protection from erosion;
104. Points out that in the current programming period 2007-2013, rural development (and its financing instrument EARDF) as the second pillar of CAP has an important regional impact; urges the Commission to exploit the possibilities for a more coherent implementation in relation to the regional policy programmes (structural funds) in order to come to an integrated approach in fields where synergy can be obtained;
105. Believes that there can be no rural development without agricultural activity, and that the objective must be to ensure economic viability for the inhabitants of rural areas and improve their quality of life;
106. Urges the Commission to present a coherent set of proposals in order to maintain and develop sustainable agricultural activity especially in less favoured areas and areas with natural handicaps, as these are of crucial importance for protecting biodiversity and preserving ecosystems;
107. Calls on the Commission to step up research and technology transfer measures in order, in particular, to promote more environment and ecosystem friendly production methods in the interests of sustainable agriculture;
108. Draws attention to successful projects around the EU where cooperation at the local and regional level between farmers, environmental groups and authorities have successfully reduced the environmental impact of agriculture;
109. Considers especially that any future system must focus more strongly on aspects of the social, economic and territorial coherence and integrated development of rural and also peri-urban areas, reinforcing key agricultural sectors, rewarding effort and compensating for extra burdens, and risk management; considers that the relationship between the first and the second pillar must be entirely redefined for this purpose;
110. Takes the view that European agriculture can provide environmentally-friendly solutions to the most pressing problems facing our urbanised society in peri-urban regions as well and can thus contribute to achieving the objectives of the both the Lisbon and Göteborg strategies;
111. Draws attention to the particular role played by farmers in peri-urban areas; peri-urban farmers and land managers can promote solutions that meet both Lisbon (knowledge, research, innovation) and Goteborg (sustainability) objectives;
112. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has undergone three fundamental reforms since 1992. The aim of all these reforms was:
· to improve the efficiency and transparency of the CAP,
· to increase the market orientation of farmers,
· to better integrate new elements – in particular environmental and animal protection aspects – into the general agricultural policy, and
· to boost rural areas.
The earlier system of price support, which was unable to solve the problem of farmers’ low incomes and, moreover, led to large surpluses which could only be disposed of on world markets with the aid of further subsidies, has been gradually replaced by a system of direct payments.
At the heart of the current support for farmers is a direct payment, introduced in the 2003 Mid-Term Review Reform, which is granted independently of any stipulated production (decoupled direct payment). Individual claims are based on historical payments made to farmers during particular reference periods before the reform came into force. It was possible for these to be paid as a single payment for the period 2003 to 2013.
However, most Member States apply different models of payment by surface area which involve considerably different entitlements from those in the past. The latter are only relevant in determining the total amount available to a Member State or region.
Payments which are totally or partially coupled to production can also be maintained in the present system; Member States have made use of their margins to differing degrees in this matter.
Public funding was tied to the provision of proof that a farmer was adhering to essential Community and/or national requirements concerning good agricultural practice (cross-compliance (CC)). These standards cover essential aspects of agricultural practice undertaken with concern for the environment, health and animal welfare.
The new Member States will become completely integrated into the direct payments system by 2013 (2015 for RO and BU).
Extra resources have been made available for the second pillar – concerning rural development – through redeployment (max. 5% modulation). The overall financial framework of the second pillar has lagged behind the European Parliament’s demands, and there have been repeated instances of Member States in great need of rural development measures having problems providing cofinancing resources.
Important market organisations such as sugar, bananas, fruit and vegetables and wine have been (or will be) reformed with the same objectives since 2004. The milk market organisation, with the milk quota as a prominent instrument, was left largely unchanged but will cease to exist in 2015.
As a result, spending this year within the CAP will be considerably below its initial budget, as market support measures such as intervention or the remaining export subsidies will not be employed because of trends in agricultural prices.
This means that, for the first time since the Community was founded, the agricultural budget is no longer the largest heading in the EU budget. Budgetary discipline and a limited increase in the agricultural budget mean that the relative share of Community spending on agriculture will be further reduced, with the direct payments per farmer showing a relative decrease of 10 - 20% (including modulation).
The Commission has now produced a communication in which it proposes, essentially, to continue in the direction adopted by the 2003 reform. This 'health check' is the Commission's way of responding to the call from heads of state and government in December 2005 to analyse all EU expenditure, with a special emphasis on agricultural spending. The total spending on the CAP is not, in fact, the subject of the communication but is restricted to the health check of the budget.
The main Commission proposals are:
· further decoupling,
· a faster move to an area-based flat rate for direct payments,
· the abolition of smaller, production-based measures or their integration into the system of decoupled direct payments,
· further modulation,
· degressivity of direct support and an increase in minimum thresholds for payments,
· a commitment to ending the milk quota and paving the way for a soft landing.
Evaluation
The rapporteur upholds the concept of multifunctional, broad‑based agriculture spread throughout Europe.
He welcomes the path of reform which has thus far been embarked upon and considers that the process of opening up the market and simplifying the CAP by 2013 must be pursued with all haste.
The rapporteur considers that the EU will also need a CAP in the future, and that the CAP must make available a sufficient array of instruments to strengthen important key areas of the agricultural sector, intervene in a supportive way in the event of crises concerning yields, the environment and epidemics, ensure territorial coherence and continue to develop rural areas as a whole, in accordance with the Lisbon objectives.
The Commission’s approach, whereby the 2003 reforms would be completed before a revolutionary restructuring of the CAP or the payment systems was discussed, is endorsed. The rapporteur does not consider that a radical restructuring of payments would be beneficial at this point. One of the main functions of the present direct payments, by means of which a large number of aims – alongside that of income support – are pursued, is to help farmers with the transition from the old system to the new, markedly more market-oriented structure. It does not, therefore, seem sensible to review the size of individual payments or of the total budget every time agricultural prices rise. The 2003 reforms are a long way from being complete, and conditions in different parts of Europe are as yet not even partially comparable.
After 2013, the system of direct payments and of rural development policy will probably need to be comprehensively restructured on the basis of experience gained during the transition phase, whilst the time until then should be used to consolidate the successes of previous reforms and not be taken up with discussions on financing, which would in any case produce scant results. What farmers need, at this time of transformation and reorientation and in view of hefty price rises on world markets, is investment security and reliability rather than uncertainty. Consequently, the pledge made by heads of state and government to leave the total expenditure for market measures untouched until 2013 must be adhered to.
Decoupling/ending coupled payments/cross-compliance
At the moment, some direct payments are still coupled to production and, in Member States which employ the farm model, calculated on the basis of past reference amounts.
The rapporteur supports the Commission’s plan to have a single payment by surface area at national or regional level in place as soon as possible, and preferably by 2013. The current system is difficult to justify to the general public, added to which most Member States have already decided to implement the system of payment by surface area and drop the system of historical payments. The annual report of the European Court of Auditors on spending in 2006 shows, moreover, that administering single payments by surface area is markedly less cumbersome and subject to error than the farm model. Maintaining the historical model would also make further reforms after 2013 much more difficult.
The rapporteur also supports further decoupling, in principle, particularly in the area of plant production, as this contributes to a simplification of agricultural policy and has not suffered from predicted negative consequences such as the loss of regionally or environmentally important crops.
The rapporteur points out that in Member States which have opted for national or regionalised single payments by area, redistribution of direct payments in favour of livestock farms using extensive farming methods has regularly been seen.
Livestock farming must, however, on the whole be treated separately. It is very susceptible to crises, as can be seen in the current price evolution of cereals and the resulting problems for feedstuffs. This is compounded by the European standards for precisely the fields of livestock farming and animal health being much higher than in other parts of the world, with European producers finding it extremely difficult to pass on the extra costs thus entailed. This situation cannot be maintained in the long term; it is already leading to a continuous reduction in herds.
Livestock farming is also relatively labour-intensive and is very important in many regions for regional development or the maintenance of important natural areas. Coupled payments may be a way of countering such crises. The rapporteur is, therefore, not in favour of a compulsory elimination of existing coupled payments, and he considers that any funding which is freed as a result of a reformed Article 69 should be used, not least, to preserve sectors which are regionally or environmentally significant, in particular livestock farming.
The rapporteur also considers that the proposals made thus far are not sufficient to safeguard livestock farming in Europe in the long term. He therefore expects the Commission to undertake, by way of preparation for the post-2013 financing period, a comprehensive analysis of the situation of livestock farming in Europe and to produce new proposals on how this, a key sector for Europe, can be safeguarded.
The rapporteur also supports the integration of smaller production-linked payment systems which are cumbersome to administer into the decoupled direct payment model (dried fodder, flax, hemp, potato starch) and the elimination of the set-aside obligation, which no longer has a place as a volume-control system in a decoupled support system which is largely market-oriented. The modest environmental benefits can better be achieved through national legislation or, if appropriate, a change to Annex IV of Regulation 1782/2003 on the preservation of good agricultural and environmental condition.
The energy crop premium also runs counter to the system. As can be seen from this year’s oversubscription, there is no lack of energy crops; on the contrary, these are being planted as a result of the high demand and current prices and require no further support. The funds which are thus freed could be spent on support measures according to Article 69, and particularly on transition measures for the dairy sector.
Parliament has only recently given a comprehensive outline of its position on cross‑compliance, which is a vital element, if not the raison d'être, of the direct payment system. The standards can only be expanded if the burdens are clear (impact assessment) and, where appropriate, other standards are first abolished. The Commission must estimate the cost of potential new standards, before submitting the legislative proposal. Otherwise, increased demands at times of decreasing payments would scarcely seem justified.
The transition to single or more uniform payments by area is highlighting and revealing the significant regional differences in the level of CAP support (this also applies, in part, to the second pillar). The rapporteur considers that this problem must be solved in the medium term. Detailed studies and consideration of the reasons and justification for different payment levels are, however, still needed. The Commission should submit a report in good time before 2013. A possible way of removing such differences could be for payments to be geared more closely to the performance of services of general interest.
Market instruments/risk insurance
The rapporteur considers that, in the light of more marked climatic fluctuations, new animal diseases and the growing speed at which these are spreading, and the opening of European agriculture to the world market, there will be a continuous increase in crises pertaining to yield, income and epidemics. There is an urgent need for an extra safety net.
The current instruments are either inadequate in this context or need to be replaced by new systems. Introducing multi-hazard insurance schemes or setting up a fund would seem feasible. State co-financing of such systems is vital and is standard practice for all major trading partners in the world market.
We must take the first step now. In doing so, we must not forget that the risks in Europe are distributed very unevenly across sectors and regions, and that the acceptance of a solution depends to a large extent on the agricultural structure and the experiences of farmers in the individual regions.
The first phase should therefore be to introduce solutions at regional or national level. The requisite funding should be made available under the first pillar, which, as the appropriate pillar for market organisation measures, is preferable to the second pillar.
Within the framework of the redistribution of up to 2% of funds from direct payments, Member States should be given the opportunity to develop appropriate risk management systems based on their own decisions.
The Commission must implement strict monitoring with regard to distortions of competition. This could be done, for example, by establishing common framework rules within the single market organisation. The participation of producer groups or sectoral associations should be examined by the Commission and Member States.
The rapporteur considers that the systems used so far, such as intervention or storage, should not be completely abandoned but reduced in terms of their function to a genuine safety net in the event of extreme price increases, i.e. exceptional events. He supports the Commission’s proposals in this context.
Payments/second pillar
The Commission proposes various reductions for direct payments:
· increasing minimum thresholds,
· introducing significant, stepped degressivity in the case of payments in excess of EUR 100 000, and
· a further annual modulation of 2% for the 2010 - 2013 period (making a total of 8% in 2013).
The rapporteur rejects the proposed reductions as they appear here. The proposal could be justified if the sole aim of the direct payments were to support household income – even if this would mean small beneficiaries often appearing to be in less need of funding. However, the payments serve not least to maintain agricultural land management and, to a lesser extent, they are made in order to balance the high European standards. Yet the latter aims are virtually unattainable in a situation of high degressivity.
The rapporteur rejects the planned degressivity, which would mainly affect farms and regions in Eastern Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Great Britain and Spain and would lead, for example, to the suppression of over 1/3 of payments in some regions of Eastern Germany when taken together with the other planned reductions. The proposed degressivity would, moreover, lead to the economically senseless restructuring of farms or the abandonment of marginal land precisely in disadvantaged areas, and offers no agropolitical gains.
There has been no impact assessment of the effects of the reductions on individual farms, regional labour markets or entire regions, nor has any justification on agroeconomic grounds been advanced. We would expect the degressivity in its proposed form to receive a completely negative evaluation if considered in a purely agroeconomic sense, as it principally puts strong farms at a disadvantage. High degressivity, which, moreover, disregards the specific structures in certain regions, the number of workers, the composition of ownership or special regional characteristics, is unacceptable.
However, the rapporteur agrees that, to a certain extent, we can assume that larger enterprises operate more efficiently and therefore require less assistance. He also considers the second pillar to be underfinanced. Since there are, realistically, no other sources of financing available, he proposes a moderate redeployment along the lines of a ‘progressive modulation’.
This would involve the following:
EUR 10 000 - 100 000 - 1% (for the whole 2009 - 2013 period)
EUR 100 000 - 200 000 - 2% (for the whole 2009 - 2013 period)
EUR 200 000 - 300 000 - 3% (for the whole 2009 - 2013 period)
over EUR 300 000 - 4% (for the whole 2009 - 2013 period)
This progressive reduction of direct payments, moderate in its impact, would appear to be reasonable and appropriate, without the need for further scrutiny. It does not give rise to structural breaks or the hectic restructuring of existing farms which function efficiently. The exemption level of EUR 10 000 means that pressure on middle-sized family farms will be relieved, and there is a beneficial financing effect for the second pillar, as the modulation will begin in 2009 and, unlike the Commission proposal concerning degressivity, will also include farms with between EUR 10 000 and 100 000, albeit to a very limited extent.
Not even this proposal can remove the basic flaw, whereby modulation and degressivity have the greatest redeployment effect in favour of the second pillar in regions with larger farm structures and therefore, generally, in those Member States which are least disadvantaged. It should be noted, on the other hand, that over 50% of funds accruing from degressivity would be generated in Eastern Germany, further sharply increasing regional imbalances.
Funds resulting from redeployment should be used primarily in regions in which they accrue and for measures targeting risk insurance, the reinforcement and restructuring of important agricultural sectors, in particular the milk market, agri-environment measures (including adapting to climate change), animal protection or animal health, or measures aimed at the improved application of new scientific discoveries in agriculture, e.g. in the field of bioenergy.
The rapporteur would just like to point out that the largest beneficiaries of direct payments include not only royal houses but also environmental organisations. The discussion shows that in the future – i.e. after 2013 – direct payments should be more closely linked to specific efforts and particular additional burdens on farmers. A discussion on the level of payments would then be ruled out.
Milk
On the basis of statements made by the Commission and the Council, the rapporteur thinks it unlikely that the system of milk quotas will be continued in its current form beyond 2015.
It is all the more important, therefore, to already lay the foundations for enabling milk to go on being produced in Europe in future and to adopt a suitable package of measures to make the change to a new system less painful for farmers and regions affected.
Key aspects should include the safeguarding of milk production in certain regions in which there are no alternatives to the dairy industry and in which the landscape has been shaped by the dairy industry. The safeguarding of milk production must, therefore, go hand in hand with strengthening the sector as a whole, i.e. strengthening the whole of the production chain up to the distribution of final products, which, for Europe, with its traditional focus on value added products, is of key importance (e.g. cheese).
The rapporteur considers that a revised Article 69 would provide the opportunity to develop, within the framework of the first pillar, new, integrated solutions adapted to regional needs.
Since, in some European regions, there is in practical terms no alternative to dairy farming and milk production must be maintained, for reasons of landscape conservation and regional policy, special support measures must be developed for such regions and also for the sector as a whole. These might take the form of special top‑ups, coupled or decoupled premiums or sectoral restructuring measures. Funds released by the abolition of the energy crop premium and income from the superlevy or the non‑use of funds previously used in other areas of the organisation of the milk market might also be used.
A further aspect of a soft landing could be a gradual depreciation of quotas depending on the market situation. It should be examined whether Europe‑wide ex‑post offsetting of quotas, which would enable the current quota to be significantly better utilised, would not make a quota increase wholly or partly unnecessary.
Other matters
The rapporteur has made several suggestions for further development of the packages of measures in the second pillar which require no further explanation (improving quality production, better market penetration, adapting to climate change, closer alignment with the Lisbon objectives).
As preparation for the financing period after 2013, the rapporteur would also like to see the Commission produce a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of existing and potential future measures, with the aim of further improving the targeting of the range of measures in the CAP.
The revision of Article 69 opens up many opportunities for preparing for future policy. The rapporteur is therefore proposing that funding made available in this area be increased by 5% compared with the Commission document in order to enable experience to be gained with regional, environmental and sectoral support instruments under the first pillar, experience which will then need to be evaluated in order to prepare for further post‑2013 reform.
- [1] OJ L 207, 21.10.2003, p. 1.
- [2] Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0598.
- [3] Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0480.
- [4] Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0411
- [5] OJ C 287E, 29.11.2007, p. 341.
- [6] Texts adopted, P6 - TA (2005)0224.
- [7] OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
- [8] OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33.
- [9] OJ L 93, 30.3.2004, p. 1.
MINORITY OPINION
by Ilda Figueiredo, Diamanto Manolakou, Vincenzo Aita.
The CAP does not satisfy the needs of consumers, since food prices are constantly rising, or the needs of family and small and medium-sized holdings, which are forced to abandon production.
The 2003 reform exacerbated the situation. The reforms of the common organisations of the markets in sugar, fruit and vegetables, tobacco, wine, etc. confirm that the CAP favours large enterprises to the detriment of smaller ones, intensive farming to the detriment of extensive methods, the concentration of land, and the dominance of monopolies in the production and distribution of agricultural produce.
The Commission is persisting in the wrong direction by decoupling aid from production and employment and in cutting back appropriations for the CAP. It is continuing to pursue its policy of support for the multinational food corporations and large-scale landowners. The proposed reduction in large payments is insubstantial and ineffective; it is being carried out in the wrong way on the basis of non-existent criteria.
We consider that immediate measures must be taken to support the income of small and medium-sized holdings, particularly in disadvantaged regions, and to secure the strongest possible link between aid and production.
The criteria on which the measures should be based should be the self-sufficiency of Member States in food, securing adequate supplies of healthy and safe food at low prices, respect for the environment and nature, and maintaining the rural population by providing decent living conditions.
31.1.2008
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
on the Health Check on the CAP
(2007/2195(INI))
Draftswoman: Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Stresses the importance of a thriving agricultural sector and a viable rural environment in the EU, not only for economic reasons but also with a view to the preservation of the landscape and food security;
2. Welcomes the fact that the Commission intends to respond to the challenge of climate change and to adapt its agricultural policy accordingly, supporting less intensive farming practices in order to improve the GHG emission prospects of the farming sector, and stresses the need to preserve the environment and to restore ecosystems;
3. Considers it necessary, to that end, to develop in the direction of a sustainable, multifunctional agriculture in which farmers are encouraged to use environmentally sustainable agricultural methods (in particular conservation farming and organic farming);
4. Stresses that public funding for farming is linked to the performance in the fields of environment, nature and animal welfare and must be conditional on respect for essential environmental and animal welfare legislation (Cross-Compliance); urges the Commission not to weaken the existing cross-compliance provisions through so-called simplification, and to examine whether these requirements are effective, but at the same time calls on the Commission to scrap unnecessary administrative requirements and burdens; believes that additional provisions on water use and management, water quality and GHG emissions should be included in the cross-compliance scheme;
5. Regrets that the Commission missed the opportunity to tackle more broadly the problems linked to increased imports of food and feed which do not correspond to EU standards and thus risk undermining the European Union’s achievements in environmental, animal welfare and social conditioning of public aid; calls on the Commission to propose measures to remedy this situation as soon as possible and to ensure compliance with Community environmental and health legislation;
6. Underlines the strong relationship between agricultural activity and water quality and quantity and stresses that pressures from agriculture on the water environment need to be managed in a sustainable manner; believes that environmental legislation in combination with the polluter pays principle should be the guiding principle for effective achievement of sustainable water management and environmental objectives;
7. Points out that in the current programming period 2007-2013, rural development (and its financing instrument EARDF) as the second pillar of CAP has an important regional impact; urges the Commission to exploit the possibilities for a more coherent implementation in relation to the regional policy programmes (structural funds) in order to come to an integrated approach in fields where synergy can be obtained;
8. Points out that biodiversity is both affected, created and threatened by agriculture; considers that global, local and EU efforts are needed to protect the valuable ecosystem services that biodiversity provides, namely air and water purification, pollination of crops and protection from erosion;
9. Believes that decoupling direct aid from agricultural production can in the long term contribute to reducing the negative environmental impact of European agriculture, provided that it is accompanied by strengthened support for sustainable practices in rural development;
10. Urges the Commission to present a coherent set of proposals in order to stimulate the production of sustainable agro-energy capable of utilising the whole biomass, including a certification scheme for sustainable agro-fuels and minimum requirements for the production of these fuels, and paying due regard to the potential of second generation agro-fuels that make use of residual products from agriculture, such as manure;
11. Urges the Commission to show restraint in stimulating biofuels, since the environmental benefits of many such fuels are questionable at best, and since an increase in biofuel production in the EU could lead to rising food prices and food shortages;
12. Calls for increased modulation rates and qualified degressive single farm payments including environmental and social modulation criteria; urges the Commission to make more funds available for more sustainable agricultural production methods and for rural development policies; is however concerned about the current tendency in Member States to focus their rural development programmes on farm investments; believes that rural development funds should be used predominantly for agro-environmental programmes, animal welfare measures, Leader-type measures and other more integrated approaches towards sustainable rural economies;
13. Is concerned that the abolition of mandatory set-aside will reduce the agricultural areas suitable for biodiversity and landscape conservation purposes; calls on the Commission to come up with a legislative proposal for establishing or maintaining natural habitats and extensive and sustainable practices which enhance biodiversity, especially in the most productive agricultural areas;
14. Urges the Commission to present a coherent set of proposals in order to maintain and develop sustainable agricultural activity especially in less favoured areas and areas with natural handicaps, as these are of crucial importance for protecting biodiversity and preserving ecosystems;
15. Calls on the Commission to step up research and technology transfer measures in order, in particular, to promote more environment and ecosystem friendly production methods in the interests of sustainable agriculture;
16. Underlines the importance of permanent grasslands for protection of agricultural biodiversity, and calls on the Commission to remedy the weaknesses in preventing the conversion of grasslands and forests into crop production;
17. Draws attention to successful projects around the EU where cooperation at the local and regional level between farmers, environmental groups and authorities have successfully reduced the environmental impact of agriculture.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
29.1.2008 |
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
49 1 1 |
|
|
Members present for the final vote |
Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Margrete Auken, Pilar Ayuso, Johannes Blokland, Frieda Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Dorette Corbey, Magor Imre Csibi, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Matthias Groote, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Jens Holm, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Urszula Krupa, Linda McAvan, Roberto Musacchio, Riitta Myller, Péter Olajos, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Kathy Sinnott, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Marcello Vernola, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott |
||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Iles Braghetto, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Niels Busk, Antonio De Blasio, Duarte Freitas, Johannes Lebech, Miroslav Mikolášik, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Bart Staes |
||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
|
|
||
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
26.2.2008 |
|
|
|
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
33 6 3 |
||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Vincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Bernadette Bourzai, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giovanna Corda, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Esther Herranz García, Lily Jacobs, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Vincenzo Lavarra, Stéphane Le Foll, Diamanto Manolakou, Véronique Mathieu, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, James Nicholson, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Dimitar Stoyanov, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Janusz Wojciechowski, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Katerina Batzeli, Esther De Lange, Catherine Neris, Maria Petre, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Struan Stevenson, Kyösti Virrankoski |
|||||