Brussels, 10/05/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission should be more ambitious in its work on simplifying the rules of cross-compliance with regard to agricultural subsidies introduced since 2003 (payment of financial support on condition that the operator respect environmental criteria, animal welfare and product quality). Such is the main message delivered by MEPs, the representatives of professional organisations and political decision-makers, during a hearing organised by the EP agriculture committee in Brussels on Tuesday 8 May.
The 2003 regulation on cross-compliance contains “too many rules to observe and too many documents to fill in, a lack of proportion between compliance with rules and the sanctions when the rules are violated”, bemoaned Peter Gaemalke, president of the Danish Agriculture Council. Peter Kandall, president of the National Farmers' Union (NFU) of Britain, brandished a 266-page wad of pages to be filled in by all the producer groups of his region, saying it was a “nightmare for farmers”. Pekka Pesonen, secretary general of COPA-COGECA, pointed out that farmers were having to work in a “climate of constant fear” and that they are sometimes forced to pay consultants to be sure that they have done nothing wrong. He commented that nearly 70% of the infringements recorded by the Commission in 2005 related to minor problems such as earmarks lost by animals. Several speakers also pointed to problems of unfair competition between farmers because of the differing application of the compliance rules in various member states, and sometimes even between different regions in the same country (different regional controls).
On 29 March, the European Commission adopted a report in which it suggests ways to improve and simplify the cross-compliance system (better information for farmers, introduction of a degree of tolerance in cases of minor infringements, harmonisation of the frequency of inspections and advance notification of certain on-the-spot checks). Most participants felt that the Commission's suggestions were along the right lines. They nonetheless called for bolder measures, starting with a shorter and clearer list of rules.
Joachim Hauck, of the Ministry for Food and Rural Environment of the German Land of Baden-Württemberg, put forward a number of suggestions, such as a transition period for the application of new rules and advance warning for farmers before each inspection. Wanda Chmielewska-Gill, from the Polish Foundation of Assistance Programmes for Agriculture (FAPA), put forward the idea that the cross-compliance system should only apply from 2013 to new member states such as Poland, since these countries, which joined the EU in 2004, will only receive the level of direct farm aid equivalent to that of the old member states as of that date. She also suggested fewer inspections when farmers receive less than €5000 in aid per year. “If an infringement is spotted, would it not be more logical to encourage the perpetrator to rectify this rather than punishing him?”, asked Peter Kandall (NFU) before going on to advocate “de-briefing after inspections”. “Inspectors could also become advisors”, Peter Gaemelke said. This idea of having inspectors/advisors also appealed to the chairman of the EP agriculture committee, Neil Parish (EPP-EP, UK). Esther Herranz Garcia (EPP-ED, Spain) urged for “harmonisation of inspections in the member states, without going too far”. She also called for environmental norms to be applied to products imported into the EU. Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (PES, Portugal), for his part, believed there should be an appeal body for farmers. “Farmers are innocent until proved otherwise”, Neil Parish concluded, saying that farmers will have gained a great deal if they can challenge failings noted by inspectors. (lc)