Brussels, 17/04/2003 (Agence Europe) - France has forwarded to the EU Council of Ministers its contribution on the subject of one of the major elements of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform proposals, namely the principle of aid "conditionality" (the granting of aid subject to compliance with good farming practice or animal welfare and quality rules), including the farm advisory system. France considers that these two "tools" that it welcomes must comply with the principles of CAP simplification and be applicable in a realistic manner. According to Paris, the current proposal results, through inapplicable arrangements, is making it very difficult to achieve legitimate objectives.
France proposes simplifying the proposals on conditionality, first of all by making a better definition of its scope. It considers that: - it is appropriate to exclude from the scope of conditionality any provision that comprises qualitative assessments (in order to separate regulatory provisions and the voluntary approaches that go beyond regulations and which are remunerated under rural development); - the condition for keeping permanent prairies in their present state must be made more flexible in order to adopt this constraint to specific cases of farm management; - conditionality must cover a restricted list of points of regulation that concern farming; - the implementation of the various measures must be gradual (it should be possible to choose certain priority measures initially that would be reviewed according to the results of the experience). France considers that the modalities proposed by the Commission are not realistic. Thus: - the list of texts is too long (38 directives), covering broad areas of activity, sometimes not directly linked to production and farmers; - standards for "good farming conditions", linked to the setting in place of aid decoupling, are not regulatory, and are hence difficult to verify; - the integration of controls in the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) would entail difficulties at various levels (the organisation proposed is administratively complex and costly, the means of implementation to respect the rate of control are too sophisticated, and risk analysis for all subjects covered is very hard to achieve).
France also suggests that the control rules should be clarified and simplified, so that: - control is achieved through indicators defined in advance in order to limit the interpretations of inspectors and simplify the process; - controls are not integrated into the IACS (it must be possible to achieve control of conditionality through information from the existing inspection bodies that forward the cases of infringement noted to the IACS); - the rate of control can be modulated according to the kind of indicator and controls (France proposes that it may be below 5% for controls requiring greater technical means); - account clearance should be better defined. Furthermore, it would be necessary, says Paris, to adapt sanctions better: - the list of conditionality rules should accompanied by a range of sanctions that correspond to each breach of the rule chosen, depending on the gravity of the infringement and the rate of repeated infringements; - the range of sanctions should be specified in the regulation; - and the level of current sanctions is too high. Sanctions could be accumulated but up to a threshold in order not to penalise the great diversification of farms; - the 20% percentage of funds levied under sanctions, which can be conserved by the Member States, should be raised. Furthermore, France calls for greater coherence with provisions on rural development (second CAP pillar). It thus recommends that the rules of conditionality which apply to the first pillar should make up the conditions for eligibility to aid under the second pillar so that farmers have a clear vision of the conditions to be respected.
France also considers that the farm advisory council system cannot be linked to sanctions. Furthermore, the national costs entailed by the compulsory nature of this system are, in its view, too high and difficult for Member States to accept. This is why it defends the principle of a voluntary system of agricultural advisory councils for Member States and farms. The aim would be to define a framework at Community level allowing each Member State to promote overall farming approaches aimed, in compliance with the regulation, at strengthening the positive impact of farm practice in the fields of the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and safety at work, and to reduce the negative effects, while safeguarding the economic profitability of the farm. France proposes that the advisory council system should be based on the following principles: - Community framework specifying the categories of requirements or minimum requirements appearing in each national referential; - each member State could introduce into this referential requirements of a legislative or regulatory kind or provisions based on scientific or technical bases that it considers necessary; - the referentials thus developed would be approved at Community level in the light of recognition criteria previously established; - any overall farming approach should come into this framework, including private approaches; - farms that adhere to the system should have the possibility of obtaining a qualification for farming (assuring compliance with requirements); - the system of certifying bodies proposed by the Commission could serve as a base for defining the Community framework.
By way of conclusion, France affirmed that this advisory council system no longer has legitimacy for appearing in the horizontal regulation, since the link with conditionality must be broken. Its definition must therefore be made in another separate horizontal regulation for direct payments, for example in the regulation on rural development, which would also specify the financing possibilities.