On Wednesday 14 May, the European Commission proposed to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens for farmers and administrations and to move towards a more flexible implementation of certain Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) rules.
These changes could save farmers up to €1.58 billion a year and national administrations €210 million. The proposal will have to be adopted by the EU Council and the European Parliament (see EUROPE 13638/9).
On the subject of environmental requirements, the first element of the simplification package, the main problem reported by farmers and Member States concerns cross-compliance (conditions to be met in order to receive aid).
As far as the environment is concerned, “we clearly have environmental ambitions in the current agricultural policy”, European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen told the press. He cited the protection of permanent grasslands, wetlands and peat bogs. “It’s very clear that we are not reducing our ambitions for grasslands”, Mr Hansen said defensively.
During his speech (https://aeur.eu/f/gte ) at the press conference, Mr Hansen stated that “we are in the greenest CAP ever, and this direction will not change”. However, it is difficult to impose a unique and standardised set of rules to a highly diverse sector, faced with very different environmental conditions, the Commissioner pointed out.
For organic farmers, the Commission suggests exempting them from five ‘good agricultural and environmental conditions’ (GAEC), “as their regulations are already extremely detailed and restrictive”, according to an EU source. Organic legislation offers a level of protection equivalent to that required by these five GAECs.
Mr Hansen agreed: most organic farming practices “are green by definition”. So, for five GAECs, “we consider that what organic farming does is equivalent. This in no way reduces the requirements, as they will still have to comply with organic criteria. It will not be necessary to check a second time, to control a second time, to add an additional administrative burden”, stressed the Commissioner.
As regards GAEC 1 (maintenance of permanent grassland) in general, the Commission is proposing to extend the period from five to seven years for classifying an area as permanent grassland. “This would allow farmers to conserve grassland without ploughing it too early to avoid it being considered as permanent grassland, while offering environmental benefits”, according to a European source. Under current rules, any temporary grassland that has not been moved becomes permanent grassland or pasture after five years.
“We are granting a longer time limit, seven years, for the land to be classified as permanent grassland. This is a clear environmental benefit that we are achieving with this measure”, explained Mr Hansen.
Still on the subject of GAEC 1, the Commission is proposing to increase the ratio of permanent grassland from 5% to 10%, to better reflect structural changes in certain Member States where the livestock sector has declined. If the Member State is very close to this ratio, it cannot, for example, grow arable crops or carry out other economic activities.
The Commission is asking Member States to justify their decisions. They have to explain the impact this will have on the environment and the climate. “They notify us of any changes, and we can object to them”, says a European source.
With regard to wetlands and peatlands (GAEC 2), the Commission insists that it has not decided to abolish these obligations. It proposes a more pragmatic implementation, allowing Member States to rely on their existing national legislation, provided that it pursues the same environmental objectives.
No changes have been made to GAEC 4. Just a footnote specifies that EU countries may use their national definition of watercourses (again with the possibility for the Commission to object).
The second element of the proposal concerns payments.
With regard to payments to small farmers, the Commission is proposing to double the amount of flat-rate aid to €2,500 per year. There will be no cross-compliance linked to this payment, and the Commission is also giving small farmers the opportunity to benefit from incentive payments (under eco-regimes, for environmentally-friendly practices). Only six EU countries currently use lump-sum payments, because €1,250 is not a sufficiently attractive amount.
Small farmers will also find it easier to obtain financial support thanks to a new simple financing option offering up to €50,000 in a single payment to improve the competitiveness of their farms.
The third element of the proposal concerns controls. The Commission is planning to introduce provisions introducing a target of one inspection per year by inspectors (on aid applications or compliance with cross-compliance). In addition, the Commission is trying to encourage countries to use satellite systems for controls (Area Monitoring Systems or AMS) in order to avoid controls at the place of operation as much as possible. “We expect the Member States to coordinate the timetable for the various national inspections”, said Mr Hansen.
Fourthly, the proposal maintains the agricultural reserve (in the event of a crisis: €450 million a year) and simplifies its use to better respond to market disruptions, in line with its initial objective. Two new types of crisis payment are therefore being introduced as part of direct payments and rural development. Member States will be able to allocate up to 3% of their annual CAP budget to help farmers cope with the effects of natural disasters or animal diseases that have a direct impact on farmers. They will be able to use these envelopes by modifying their CAP strategic plans.
Christophe Hansen admitted that the €450 million in the agricultural reserve is “not enough to deal with floods, forest fires and droughts across the continent”. In addition, the Commission gives Member States the option of using up to 3% of their annual CAP budget for crisis management. “This can also cover climatic events, but also animal diseases”, added the Commissioner, stressing that it was important to give Member States these tools now, “without waiting for the next Multiannual Financial Framework” (MFF).
Moreover, under the proposal, Member States will have greater flexibility to adapt their CAP strategic plans, with prior approval from the Commission required only for so-called ‘strategic’ changes (other changes will simply have to be notified). This will have a positive impact on farmers, who will be able to benefit more quickly from the changes introduced.
Link to the legislative proposal: https://aeur.eu/f/gt3 (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)