Brussels, 17/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - In its opinion published on Tuesday 17 April on the proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the European Court of Auditors “recognises the efforts made” by the Commission to simplify the provisions of the CAP and to address a number of observations made by the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the Court itself. The Court considers, however, that the legislative framework of this policy remains too complex, in particular with regard to rural development and cross compliance (i.e. granting aid only if certain criteria are met).
In October 2011, the Commission published its legislative proposals for the reform of the CAP as of 2014 (see EUROPE 10472). The European Court of Auditors examined the four main draft regulations presented.
In its opinion, the Court considers that arrangements on CAP expenditure remain complex. For example, six distinct layers of rules govern rural development expenditure. A further example relates to cross compliance. Court says that, in spite of the proposed reorganisation, “the complexity of this policy continues to make it difficult for paying agencies and beneficiaries to administer”.
The Court feels, too, that despite the claim that it focuses on results, the policy remains fundamentally focused on spending and controlling expenditure. It is and remains, therefore, oriented more towards compliance than performance. For example, the objectives and desired outcomes of cross compliance and the “environmental” component of direct payments (proposed greening of 30% of direct aid for farmers) are not adequately set out.
The Court has noted the Commission's intention to direct CAP payments to “active farmers” and to achieve a more balanced distribution of direct payments among beneficiaries. However, the Court “has doubts as to whether some of these proposed measures can be implemented effectively without imposing an excessive administrative burden on national managing agencies and on farmers”. The Court considers that the risk persists that payments may continue to be made to beneficiaries who do not exercise any agricultural activity. It believes that the solution could be to adopt a general and simple definition of what constitutes an “active farmer” and to entrust the Commission with the task of managing the implementation of the resulting legislation. It notes that the “capping” of aid (reducing the amount of aid when such aid exceeds certain levels) will have only a limited effect on the redistribution of aid.
The administrative costs resulting from the reform of the CAP, notably the reform of the direct payments scheme is to be borne largely by the member states. The modest simplification and the consequent increase in the administrative load will have an effect on costs. The Commission estimates that the proposed reform is likely to result in an increase of 15 % in the costs of managing the direct payment schemes. The member states feel that the increase could be greater. The Court of Auditors notes that no information is available on the extent to which such additional costs might be offset by increased management or policy efficiency.
The Court wishes to underline that the effectiveness of the reform will also rest on the clarity of the implementing regulations the Commission is to bring forward. It will also depend on how quickly paying agencies will adapt their procedures and systems, which may require between 12 and 24 months following the adoption of the implementing provisions by the Commission.
The draft regulation provides for payment entitlements to be available to new farmers (in particular young farmers who commence their agricultural activity) in 2014. However, the Court is concerned that such availability will no longer be guaranteed in subsequent years. In addition, the Court notes that the requirement to have activated payment entitlements in 2011 in order to apply for entitlements in 2014 is likely to create new barriers to entry for new farmers. It considers that sufficient safeguards should be provided to address these barriers.
The Court considers that the draft provisions dealing with “withdrawals”, “reductions” and “exclusion” of payments in the member states are confusing, both in their wording and their scope.
Michel Cretin, a member of the European Court of Auditors will present the Court's opinion on the Commissions' legislative proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy in the European Parliament at the end of April. (LC/transl.rt)