25.4.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/25

—

will work to ensure that the necessary review of the CAP does not result in any gradual dismantling and renationalisation of that policy, but makes it possible to maintain sustainable agriculture and food autonomy;

—

believes that the CAP makes a significant contribution to territorial cohesion and that any proposals for change as a result of the Health Check must have sufficient regard to the various regional specificities and production systems that exist within the European Union;

—

feels that the CAP, with a tailored second pillar, must result in rural development geared to the new farming conditions, as well as to more comprehensive rural development covering all rural areas in the EU;

—

acknowledges the importance of appropriate funding for rural development measures, but in line with subsidiarity, — yet while still recognising the Community nature of modulation — believes that decisions on modulation are best taken at the appropriate devolved level to better reflect the diversity of local and regional needs. Member States and regions should have the scope to direct funds to Pillar II measures based on actual needs;

—

is concerned however, that attempts to use the ‘rural development’ umbrella to incorporate an ever-growing number of issues could be problematic and would question whether a number of these challenges would be best addressed through rural development programmes;

—

urges that regions must be able to retain an element of food self-sufficiency including those where cultivation and stock farming conditions are difficult and highlights the direct link between high quality locally-produced food and regional identity which the CAP must safeguard;

—

believes that there is a need to provide for a soft landing for the quota regime to facilitate its expiry in March 2015 and supports the gradual phasing out of the milk quota regime through to 2015 through the gradual expansion of quotas and the reduction of the superlevy. Safeguard mechanisms should continue to be provided in the event of an excessive drop in market prices. As part of this process, special arrangements will be required to sustain dairying in sensitive regions.

Rapporteur

:

Mr Seamus MURRAY — Member of Meath County Council and the Mid-East Regional Authority (IE/UEN-AE)

1.

considers that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) must continue to strive to achieve its objectives of providing EU citizens with quality food at fair prices, providing farmers with a good standard of living, preserving our rural heritage and protecting the rural environment and has evolved to meet challenges and changing needs; whilst at the same time establishing conditions of fair competition enabling European agriculture to maintain its presence on the world market, with due respect for the concept of Community preference;

2.

states that the CAP is in line with the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives which seek to make Europe more competitive; in this context, points out that the CAP must continue to form the basis of public measures for the economic, social and environmental defence of a key European sector, acceptable both within the EU and outside its borders;

3.

believes that the CAP makes a significant contribution to territorial cohesion and that any proposals for change as a result of the Health Check must have sufficient regard to the various regional specificities and production systems that exist within the European Union;

4.

feels that the CAP, with a tailored second pillar, must result in rural development geared to the new farming conditions, as well as to more comprehensive rural development covering all rural areas in the EU, in particular the most vulnerable areas such as those with natural handicaps (upland, island and outermost areas), and integrating them into the EU's major geographical groupings, for example the Nordic and Mediterranean areas;

5.

sees farming and agriculture as the mainstay of many rural communities and given that the EU has a different production model compared to other major food-producing and exporting countries, considers that income support policies should be targeted primarily to help sustain the viability of practising and family-farming units, since it is they who are basically upholding the EU's multifunctional agricultural model;

6.

will work to ensure that the necessary review of the CAP does not result in any gradual dismantling and renationalisation of that policy, but makes it possible to maintain sustainable agriculture and food autonomy in conformity with food safety health standards in Europe; underscores the challenges involved in this common policy for all the Union's regions and for its citizens as a whole;

7.

welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the CAP Health Check and seeks to be consulted on the Commission's legislative proposals as the debate progresses;

8.

notes, like the Commission, that the CAP has changed during the last 15 years, particularly since the radical 2003 reform when arrangements were made to undertake a Health Check to review the most recent changes and to consider new challenges, risks and opportunities; points out that it is taking place in a new global and European context of trade in food products;

9.

emphasises that the multifunctional EU agriculture model must contribute to combat climate change, embody the concepts of sustainability, competitiveness, diversity, food self-sufficiency, responsiveness to society, consumers and the public good where good farming practices, environmental protection and animal welfare are integral, and considers that the CAP Health Check should serve to effectively uphold the EU's multifunctional model of agriculture;

10.

emphasises the importance of the indigenous European agri-food industry and the critical significance of food safety and food security where the EU is now the biggest agricultural importer in the world;

11.

considers that an evaluation of the effects of recent CAP reforms, particularly on numbers employed in farming and food processing, food quality, availability, price and the levels of food imports, as well as environmental and animal welfare impacts would better assist in the appraisal of reforms and is disappointed that this was not available at the outset of the Health Check, furthermore, calls for such analyses and reviews to be made available on a regional basis prior to the adoption on any legislative changes;

12.

endorses nevertheless, the general thrust of the Health Check to correct anomalies in the implementation of recent reforms and hopes that it will be implemented in a way that makes it possible to plan for the long-term, to allow authorities, the agri-food industry and farmers to fully implement agreed changes and to adapt to market needs;

13.

considers that there is a massive gap between common perceptions of the CAP and the reality, a gap that needs to be overcome by policymakers. In a recent Eurobarometer survey (1), 88 % of respondents believe farming and rural areas are either important or very important to Europe's future. At the same time almost 90 % of respondents had little or no knowledge of the CAP (54 % never having heard of it and 34 % not knowing what it is); therefore believes that there is a need for a greater evaluation and dissemination of information of the aims and achievements of the CAP;

14.

welcomes initiatives to streamline and simplify the implementation of the CAP but emphasises that such initiatives must be developed, at all times, with all end-users in mind;

15.

supports all reasonable moves to further simplify the SPS, as unnecessarily rigid, complex rules and bureaucratic procedures are a considerable burden and cost, however, changes to the SPS should not be based solely on the requirement to simplify, but should meet the need to strengthen and defend the EU's multifunctional model;

16.

supports the proposal that Member States should have the opportunity to adjust from a historical basis for SPS towards a ‘flatter’ rate as 2013 approaches, where considered necessary, but believes that this will require flexibility in the detailed implementation of the ‘flatter’ rate in the Member States and regions. This flexibility should also allow for the impact that full decoupling may have on certain sectors and regions, and the possibility of graduated payments in favour of the more multifunctional farms and farms that are less well rewarded by the market. Impact analysis is also desirable in the Member States on the effect of this major potential change in terms of its likely effects on land-use, farm structure, farm ownership and succession, enterprise mix, regional balance and overall farming efficiency and competitiveness;

17.

is of the view that in relation to the ‘new’ Member States, further analysis is required of the consequences of movement away from SAPS;

18.

acknowledges the necessity for cross-compliance with EU environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare standards and urges that work continue to simplify unduly complicated laws or rules, whether introduced by the Commission or in the Member States;

19.

considers, however, that a review of the requirements on keeping land in good environmental condition must not be allowed to undermine or water down environmental requirements which must be kept under review as regulations (such as pesticides) are amended;

20.

underlines that proportionality, transparency and coherency should be the bywords for cross-compliance regulations to improve their accessibility and observation; calls for the simplification measures that have been initiated and decided on to be implemented without delay, for the less relevant legal parts of Annexes III and IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 to be removed, and for the cross-compliance regulations to be restricted to those legal areas directly concerning recipients of direct payments;

21.

would particularly welcome greater cooperation and coordination between farm inspection agencies given the increasing number and range of inspections;

22.

considers that in general PCS is seen as a transitional measure towards a general move to full decoupling. However in a regional context, where levels of production are small, where the region itself is economically vulnerable, or where the social and environmental benefits of partial decoupling are apparent, a PCS measure can have a continuing role for a number of years; thus supports the proposal that PCS be permitted to continue under these terms to retain an element of regional self-sufficiency and to help ensure balanced regional development;

23.

considers that with transparency in SPS payments and recent Court of Auditors' findings, an upper payment limit would be publicly very acceptable and politically appealing. Ideally however, impact assessments should be advanced to support proposed changes; and accepts that some limitation to the upper level of payments could be implemented, for example by a scaled reduction combined with a ceiling;

24.

a minimum level of payment is proposed to allay the position where the administrative cost is greater than the payment made; supports this proposal, provided that its wording would not in practice represent a new obstacle to the viability of family-run farms and would welcome the potential saving in administrative costs;

25.

cautions that ‘genuine’ farmers may not be so easily classified as such by the size of their landholding, for instance, certain crops and enterprises can be very labour intensive while other landowners with large estates could struggle to be identified as ‘real farmers’; considers that the viability of practising farmers, particularly those smaller family-farm units should be prioritised with regard to support payments;

26.

proposes, at the same time, that major farm enterprises should not be regarded independently from their legal form, development and structure, as an overall gradual degression could in certain cases destroy competitive units and lead to substantial job reductions;

27.

considers that the global agri-food sector is moving from an era of subsidised surplus disposal and price support with volume control instruments to one more reflective of the market. This is led by significant longer term structural changes, such as sustained food demand growth, especially in Asia and the effect of biofuel policies. Short term factors such as drought and disease outbreaks as well as currency fluctuations are also relevant to temporary price changes. The much-changed international market scenario is particularly true for milk, dairy products and cereals;

28.

believes that while the current CAP market-related policy instruments are becoming less necessary with stronger international food markets, such markets can be extremely volatile. Thus for market stability, market protection for sudden, sharp price changes are required and therefore supports the necessity for the retention of market-related instruments such as a ‘safety net’ in times of market weakness, without relinquishing all supply controls;

29.

proposes that the Commission continues to closely analyse market prospects in all sectors and publish regular reports on market developments to help ensure informed policy decisions;

30.

is in favour of a full review of intervention rules for cereals and agrees with the Commission that intervention should be confined to bread wheat;

31.

supports the proposal to establish compulsory setaside at zero but proposes that the regulatory possibility of compulsory set-aside should be retained to accommodate future market weaknesses; and, endorses additional measures for environmental protection involving, for example, the maintenance of permanent pastures and the protection of riparian strips;

32.

is of the view that in contrast to recent decades, global dairy markets are now stronger and it could be expected that this demand-led market growth will be sustained. There is also considerable uncertainty, however, concerning the price of dairy products in this global market. In this context, a debate should be held on the Common Organisation of the Market in milk and dairy products, with the aim of defining new mechanisms to regulate this sector.;

33.

believes that there is a need to provide for a soft landing for the quota regime to facilitate its expiry in March 2015 and supports the gradual phasing out of the milk quota regime through to 2015 through the gradual expansion of quotas and the reduction of the superlevy. The rate and timing of quota expansion or superlevy reduction should be based on ongoing analysis of market prospects by the Commission from December 2007. Safeguard mechanisms should continue to be provided in the event of an excessive drop in market prices. As part of this process, special arrangements will be required to sustain dairying in sensitive regions;

34.

awaits the Commission review of the performance of the measures supply control for ‘smaller’ sectors (dried fodder, starch, flax and hemp);

35.

acknowledges the potential of risk management in a rapidly changing global market and the possibility of enhancing specific rural development measures to cope with increased risk; the mechanisms proposed by the Commission may have a role to play, but they cannot replace the functions performed by the main market management instruments which used to exist under the CAP and which have been gradually dismantled in recent years. Would encourage further research into and evaluation of prospective applications;

36.

acknowledges the damage that intensive agriculture has caused for example to soil structure, bio-diversity and pollution of water courses, but nevertheless emphasises the role that farmers play as guardians of the countryside and the varied traditional small-scale farming landscapes and welcomes the Commission acknowledgement that EU agriculture has contributed more than other sectors to curbing greenhouse gas emissions while pointing out that agriculture in many EU regions is highly exposed to climate change;

37.

supports the call in the recent Green Paper on adaptation to climate change for agriculture to contribute further to mitigating the effects of climate change. As climate changes, agriculture and forestry will be come increasingly important as providers of environmental and ecosystem services. Future CAP reviews could provide opportunities for including adjustment measures in farm support programmes;

38.

acknowledges the vital importance of measures to expand renewable energies and supports further relevant research and measures to extend the EU response to these vital global issues of sustainability. Notes that the cultivation of energy crops supported by national and European measures and instruments contributes substantially to achieving the energy and climate policy goals of the Community and is an important means of creating added value for agriculture and rural development. Points out that the reduced payment for energy crops has therefore become less relevant and this coupled measure can in future be eliminated;

39.

is concerned however, that attempts to use the ‘rural development’ umbrella to incorporate an ever-growing number of issues, where some could potentially be incongruous (e.g. forestry and biodiversity), could be problematic and in any case would question whether a number of these challenges would be best addressed through rural development programmes;

40.

acknowledges the importance of appropriate funding for rural development measures, but in line with subsidiarity — yet while still recognising the Community nature of modulation — believes that decisions on modulation are best taken at the appropriate devolved level to better reflect the diversity of local and regional needs. Member States and regions should have the scope to direct funds to Pillar II measures based on actual needs;

41.

furthermore, is concerned that the trend towards increased modulation is threatening the Community nature of the CAP and undermining the principle of cohesion, given that co-financing of Pillar II measures will be more difficult for poorer regions and Member States;

42.

notes that the available finance to 2013 is steadily decreasing in constant price terms, however, higher market prices in some sectors and greater efficiencies can lead to significant savings; and supports the proposition that such savings should be channelled into increased rural development measures, as for example research and innovation;

43.

would like, in the context of the consultation process on the reform of the EU budget, to set out a number of policy priorities which should be fully considered in any discussions on the future role and functioning of the CAP;

44.

is of the view that while the CAP has successfully adapted to different challenges since its inception, considers that the Commission and its agents must do more to better inform and engage with citizens about the purpose, achievements and priorities of the CAP and that this should be a future communication priority of the Commission;

45.

considers that as new challenges emerge such as the impact on agriculture and food policies of energy and climate change policies, ongoing EU expansion, international trade issues etc.; a range of expectations seek that the CAP's multifunctional nature be expanded to incorporate further roles; believes that an adequately resourced CAP for land use, food and farming must remain central to the EU project. Environmental and energy policies must also be appropriately resourced;

46.

highlights that the ageing of the EU's population has a significant impact on the agricultural sector and rural areas in general and at the same time, recognises that R&D and innovation are essential to the competitiveness of European agriculture; urges that adequate education and training be made available, particularly to encourage young entrants into farming;

47.

believes that with limited resources, priority for income supports be focused on practicing, family-farming units and those farms which actively contribute to employment and maintenance of the rural population;

48.

considers that while the agri-food sector has become market-oriented the secure supply of safe food produce for consumers at reasonable prices is essential and believes that the issue of long-term EU food security needs to be addressed;

49.

urges that uniform phytosanitary, veterinary and environmental standards be applied to food products for consumption in the EU whether EU-produced or from 3rd countries and urges that border inspection authorities, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) be provided with the human and material resources necessary for the performance of their task;

50.

believes, where food is the EU's second biggest industry, it is vital to maintain an efficient and competitive food sector. Research must be adequately resourced to support product development as well as education, training and advisory services for new producers and young farmers;

51.

considers that in order to minimise food transport and the carbon footprint there should be an emphasis on promoting EU produce and informing consumers, particularly children about the benefits of eating healthy and locally-produced food;

52.

believes that the CAP must have sufficient regard to the regional specificities that exist within the European Union and must protect and promote the diversity of agricultural activities and production systems to a greater extent, including those that are organic and GMO-free, and better responds to regional characteristics (such as those of the Mediterranean, Nordic regions mountainous and outermost regions of the EU);

53.

urges that regions must be able to retain an element of food self-sufficiency including those where cultivation and stock farming conditions are difficult and highlights the direct link between high quality locally-produced food and regional identity which the CAP must safeguard;

54.

is increasingly concerned about environmental and energy issues generally and global warming in particular and views land use policy as critically important. Agriculture must innovate in order to adapt to the effects of and combat climate change;

55.

believes the CAP should be better connected with other relevant policies such as EU energy policy, regional policy, environmental policies and R&D policies and urges for a better coordination of these policy areas at all levels of government;

56.

also believes that the CAP has both an internal and external dimension and is of the view that a future CAP must consider the role of the EU in the wider developing world by providing markets where feasible and should encourage food self-sufficiency in developing countries through technological and skills transfer; it is vital that the impact that the CAP has on developing countries is continually assessed;

57.

believes that an assessment of the rural impacts of EU decisions could offer a dimension to EU decision-making which would make it possible to take the specific characteristics of rural areas into consideration both in the planning of decisions and in monitoring their implementation. When assessing rural impacts it must be taken into account that rural areas vary in different parts of Europe and that they may also vary considerably within individual Member States, depending on where they are located;

58.

considers that the scope of ‘rural development’ and what can be encompassed under the 2nd pillar will need clearer definition and allied to this also considers that a future CAP can be better used to build alliances and support policy coordination between rural and urban areas, particularly in peri-urban areas where there can be intensive pressures on rural resources; furthermore rural development policies should encourage and protect farming in areas where it may bring particular benefits such as in and around urban areas and in sparsely populated regions;

59.

would encourage the sustainable development of rural areas for communities, based on an approach of integrated rural development, through the provision of essential services, such as education, health and postal services, and infrastructure, such as broadband and public transport;

60.

believes that for more responsive decisions, particularly in relation to wider ‘rural development’ issues, there must be more scope for and greater involvement of the local and regional level in the policy-making and decision-making processes;

61.

refers, in this context, to its Declaration on Rural Development and the Lisbon Strategy (2) as a valuable contribution to a reflection on the future of the CAP and rural development;