Brussels, 27/02/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 26 February, the European Parliament agriculture committee called for a full “health check” for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but without any electroconvulsive therapy. The health check should bring about consolidation of the latest reforms and take account of new challenges (climate change), without making too many changes to direct aid and market measures. The report by Lutz Goepel (EPP-ED, Germany) on the health check, adopted by the parliamentary committee by 33 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions, will be debated in the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday 11 March.
Most of the points put forward by the rapporteur were accepted by the committee: non automatic continuation of decoupling of aid, simplification of aid, withdrawal of intervention for cereals (except for wheat), progressive modulation of direct aid, etc (see EUROPE 9588). The agriculture committee rejected the ideas of Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel on a considerable increase in aid modulation (reduction of direct aid with this money going to rural development). In addition, the draft report confirms the difficulties to be faced in introducing “degressivity” of direct aid (reducing the aid to the wealthiest farms).
Payments to farmers. The agriculture committee is in favour of member states having more flexibility, if they wish, to separate direct payments more from historical reference values at national level. It wants a study of the potential impact of an area-based premium, in particular with regard to farms with high livestock densities. The committee also approves the principle of faster decoupling of production aid (breaking the link between aid and the quantities produced). The single payment scheme could, then, be extended to other vegetable crops (dried fodder, hemp, flax, potato starch), although only after thorough impact studies and an appropriate transition period and provided this does not endanger the existence of these crops, which are very important for some regions.
Goepel's report says that special animal premiums should not be altered, given the difficulties in the stockfarming sector following the exceptional rise in feed prices. MEPs call on the Commission to devise a global strategy to safeguard stockfarming in the EU. They also stress that direct payments will remain necessary after 2013, not only in the event of market failures but also for the provision of public goods by farmers and as compensation for Europe's very high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards.
Simplified CAP. The committee believes that the set-aside obligation should be abolished (the environmental objectives of leaving land fallow could be achieved through rural development measures), as should efforts to simplify cross-compliance rules (aid granted on condition that certain criteria are met). It rejects the idea of broadening the scope of cross-compliance until substantial progress is made towards simplifying and harmonising monitoring rules.
Market intervention, risk management. MEPs are in favour of lowering the intervention thresholds for market crops to “0” (except for wheat) and, more broadly, replacing the current system by a safety net for crises, which are likely to be more frequent because of global warming. They believe that private sector or mixed insurance schemes must be developed as a matter of urgency, with public financial support, while ensuring that the level playing field between different member states is not endangered. They call on the Commission to consider introducing or supporting a Community-wide re-insurance system covering climate-related or environmental disasters, and they stress that risk prevention measures should be funded under the first pillar (direct aid and market spending).
Progressive modulation. Instead of degressivity of direct aid (which would penalise large farms, such as those in Eastern Germany, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic) and a significant rise in compulsory modulation, the agriculture committee argues that a progressive modulation could be envisaged, on the basis of an impact assessment on the consequences for farms (farm structure, labour and/or labour cost). This would consist of a reduction of 1% of the total of direct aid from €10,000 to €100,000, 2% for €100,000 to €200,000, 3% for €200,000 to €300,000 and 4% for payments over €300,000. The funds generated would remain in the regions or member states in which they accrued.
Reallocated payments. Article 69 of the 2003 regulation on the single payment scheme enables member states to keep and reallocate up to 10% of direct aid to their farmers under the first pillar (direct and market aid). The report calls for revision of this article so that credits available are devoted as a matter of priority to: - maintaining livestock farming in some areas (mountainous regions, those suffering from water shortages, wet and disadvantaged areas); - the restructuring of key sectors (cattle farming, milk production, sheep); - area-based environmental measures (organic farming); - and the management of risks and crises in the agricultural sector. The allocation under this revised Article 69 may be up to 12% in member states that so wish, subject to an impact assessment study.
Preparing expiry of dairy quota system. Aware that the current quota scheme will probably not be renewed in its current form after 2015, the agriculture commission calls on the Commission to present a convincing plan to ensure continuity of milk production in Europe, including in the mountainous areas and areas in difficulty. It recalls the requests made by the Parliament in July 2007 (establishment of market measures for restructuring programme). Finally, MEPs take a stance in favour of a 2% increase in milk quotas for the marketing year 2008/2009 - but only for the member states that so wish. (L.C.)