Brussels, 20/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 20 November 2007, the European Commission published a document that will feed into reflection on the review of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The adopted version differs little from the one prepared by EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel's department (see EUROPE 9515 for details).
'These adjustments do not constitute a fundamental reform, but prepare EU agriculture to adapt better to a rapidly changing environment,' explains the Commission in its document. 'The health check constitutes a preparatory action within the budgetary review, without prejudging the outcome of this review. It fine-tunes the 2003 reforms and contributes to the discussion on future priorities in the field of agriculture. Based on the conclusions of public dialogue with stakeholders and ongoing impact analysis, the Commission will submit appropriate proposals in the spring of 2008,' (two seminars will be held with stakeholders to launch consultation on the subject on 6 December 2007 and 11 January 2008).
An outline of the report's main proposals:
Improved direct payment scheme. The Commission proposes: 1) moving away from payments based on historical receipts towards a 'flatter rate' system from 2009-2013; 2) increasing the rate of decoupling in those countries which opted in a number of farm sectors to maintain the link between subsidy and production (like arable farming). The Commission recognises, however, that coupled support may still play a role in regions where production is small-scale but of particular economic or environmental importance (like suckler cow premiums in regions where there is wide cattle farming); 3) gradually reducing the support level as overall payments to big farmers increase, starting from a level of, for example, €100,000 per year; 4) increasing the amount of land a farmer has to own to qualify for EU aid from the current level of 0.3 hectares; 5) reviewing the cross compliance standards which farmers are obliged to respect to receive their support from Brussels (adding new water management or climate change reduction criteria).
Market management tools. The Commission recommends: 1) maintaining intervention for a single cereal (bread-making wheat) as a safety net, with the other cereal prices establishing themselves without interference; 2) abolishing compulsory set-aside but finding solutions to preserve the environmental benefits it provided; and 3) a rise in milk quotas before they are scrapped in 2015, along with measures to reduce the negative impact of the end of quotas in some regions, particularly mountainous areas.
New challenges. The report mentions risk management, the fight against climate change, more effective management of water and making the most of the opportunities provided by bioenergy and preserving biodiversity. It will be necessary to introduce incentives to improve performance in this connection, but these will come at a cost. The report says the best way to finance the necessary new measures is through the Rural Development Policy. The Commission suggests increasing the rate of 'modulation' (i.e. the reduction of direct payments to all farms receiving more than €5,000 a year in EU subsidies and the transfer of the money into the Rural Development Budget). This would be gradually increased from 5% now to 13% in 2013. The Commission says it must also be examined whether the energy crop premium is still necessary, given new incentives for biofuel production such as the compulsory bioenergy targets and high prices.
Presenting the document to reporters, Fischer Boel said it was not the European Commission's intention to make a new reform of the CAP but rather to adapt the CAP. She said the health check was a political initiative covering adjustments to be made to the CAP from 2009-2013. In parallel, the EU will be discussing priorities post-2013 during its big budget review in 2008 and 2009, explained the commissioner.
The president of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, Neil Parish, criticises the Commission for not going far enough in its proposals. He points out that 'Conservatives would like to see firmer proposals on the simplification of regulations known as 'cross compliance' and a greater amount of money moved from direct payments into environmental schemes through compulsory 'modulation'.' (L.C.)