EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 (the MFF proposal)[1] sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2014-2020, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy.

The current reform proposals are based on the Communication on the CAP towards 2020[2] that outlined broad policy options in order to respond to the future challenges for agriculture and rural areas and to meet the objectives set for the CAP, namely 1) viable food production; 2) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action; and 3) balanced territorial development. The reform orientations in the Communication have since been broadly supported both in the inter-institutional debate[3] and in the stakeholder consultation that took place in the framework of the impact assessment.

A common theme that has emerged throughout this process is the need to promote resource efficiency with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural areas in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, keeping the structure of the CAP around two pillars that use complementary instruments in pursuit of the same objectives. Pillar I covers direct payments and market measures providing a basic annual income support to EU farmers and support in case of specific market disturbances, while Pillar II covers rural development where Member States draw up and co-finance multiannual programmes under a common framework.[4]

Through successive reforms the CAP has increased market orientation for agriculture while providing income support to producers, improved the integration of environmental requirements and reinforced support for rural development as an integrated policy for the development of rural areas across the EU. However, the same reform process has raised demands for a better distribution of support among and within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures aiming at addressing environmental challenges and better addressing increased market volatility.

In the past, reforms mainly responded to endogenous challenges, from huge surpluses to food safety crises; they have served the EU well both on the domestic and the international front. However, most of today's challenges are driven by factors that are external to agriculture and would thus require a broader policy response.

The pressure on agricultural income is expected to continue as farmers are facing more risks, a slowdown in productivity and a margin squeeze due to rising input prices; there is therefore a need to maintain income support and to reinforce instruments to better manage risks and respond to crisis situations. A strong agriculture is vital for the EU food industry and global food security.

At the same time, agriculture and rural areas are being called upon to step up their efforts to meet the ambitious climate and energy targets and biodiversity strategy that are part of the Europe 2020 agenda. Farmers, who are together with foresters the main land managers, will need to be supported in adopting and maintaining farming systems and practices that are particularly favourable to environmental and climate objectives because market prices do not reflect the provision of such public goods. It will also be essential to best harness the diverse potential of rural areas and thus contribute to inclusive growth and cohesion.

The future CAP will not, therefore, be a policy that caters only for a small, albeit essential, part of the EU economy, but also a policy of strategic importance for food security, the environment and territorial balance. Therein lies the EU added value of a truly common policy that makes the most efficient use of limited budgetary resources in maintaining a sustainable agriculture throughout the EU, addressing important cross-border issues such as climate change and reinforcing solidarity among Member States, while also allowing flexibility in implementation to cater for local needs.

The framework set out in the MFF proposal foresees that the CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure with the budget for each pillar maintained in nominal terms at its 2013 level and with a clear focus on delivering results on the key EU priorities. Direct payments should promote sustainable production by assigning 30 % of their budgetary envelope to mandatory measures that are beneficial to climate and the environment. Payment levels should progressively converge and payments to large beneficiaries be subject to progressive capping. Rural development should be included in a Common Strategic Framework with other EU shared management funds with a reinforced outcome-orientated approach and subject to clearer, improved ex-ante conditionalities. Finally, on market measures the financing of the CAP should be reinforced with two instruments outside the MFF: 1) an emergency reserve to react to crisis situations; and 2) the extension of the scope of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund.

On this basis, the main elements of the legislative framework for the CAP during the period 2014-2020 are set out in the following regulations:

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy ('the direct payments regulation');

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) ('the Single CMO regulation');

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ('the rural development regulation');

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy ('the horizontal regulation');

– Proposal for a Council regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013;

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers.

The rural development regulation builds on the proposal presented by the Commission on 6 October 2011 that sets out common rules for all funds operating under a Common Strategic Framework[5]. A regulation will follow on the scheme for most deprived persons, for which funding is now placed under a different heading of the MFF.

In addition, new rules on the publication of information on beneficiaries taking account of the objections expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union are also under preparation with a view to finding the most appropriate way to reconcile beneficiaries' right to protection of personal data with the principle of transparency.

2. RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

On the basis of the evaluation of the current policy framework and an analysis of future challenges and needs, the impact assessment assesses and compares the impact of three alternative scenarios. This is the result of a long process started in April 2010 and steered by an inter-service group that brought together extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis, including setting a baseline in the form of medium-term projections for agricultural markets and income up to 2020 and modelling the impact of the different policy scenarios on the economics of the sector.

The three scenarios elaborated in the impact assessment are: 1) an adjustment scenario that continues with the current policy framework while addressing its most important shortcomings, such as the distribution of direct payments; 2) an integration scenario that entails major policy changes in the form of enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments and reinforced strategic targeting for rural development policy in better coordination with other EU policies, as well as extending the legal base for a broader scope of producer cooperation; and 3) a refocus scenario that reorients the policy exclusively towards the environment with a progressive phasing out of direct payments, assuming that productive capacity can be maintained without support and that the socio-economic needs of rural areas can be served by other policies.

Against the background of the economic crisis and the pressure on public finances, to which the EU has responded with the Europe 2020 strategy and the MFF proposal, all three scenarios attach different weight to each of the three policy objectives of the future CAP which aims at a more competitive and sustainable agriculture in vibrant rural areas. With a view to a better alignment with the Europe 2020 strategy, notably in terms of resource efficiency, it will be increasingly essential to improve agricultural productivity through research, knowledge transfer and promoting cooperation and innovation (including through the European Innovation Partnership on agricultural productivity and sustainability). Whereas EU agricultural policy does not any more operate within a trade distorting policy environment, additional pressure on the sector is expected from further liberalization, notably in the framework of the DDA or the FTA with Mercosur.

The three policy scenarios were drawn up taking into account the preferences expressed in the consultation which was conducted in the context of the impact assessment. Interested parties were invited to submit contributions between 23.11.2010 and 25.1.2011 and an advisory committee was organised on 12.1.2011. The main points are summarized below:[6]

– There is broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for a strong CAP based on a two-pillar-structure in order to address the challenges of food security, sustainable management of natural resources and territorial development.

– Most respondents find that the CAP should play a role in stabilizing markets and prices.

– Stakeholders have diverse opinions concerning the targeting of support (especially redistribution of direct aid and capping payments).

– There is agreement that both pillars can play an important role in stepping up climate action and increasing environmental performance for the benefit of EU society. Whereas many farmers believe that this already takes place today, the wider public argues that Pillar I payments can be more efficiently used.

– The respondents want all parts of the EU, including less favoured areas, to be part of future growth and development.

– The integration of the CAP with other policies, such as environmental, health, trade, development, was emphasised by many respondents.

– Innovation, development of competitive businesses and provision of public goods to EU citizens are seen as ways to align the CAP with the Europe 2020 strategy.

The impact assessment thus compared the three alternative policy scenarios:

The refocus scenario would accelerate structural adjustment in the agricultural sector, shifting production to the most cost efficient areas and profitable sectors. While significantly increasing funding for the environment, it would also expose the sector to greater risks due to limited scope for market intervention. Furthermore, it would come at a significant social and environmental cost as the less competitive areas would face a considerable income loss and environmental degradation, since the policy would lose the leverage of direct payments coupled with the cross compliance requirements.

At the other end of the spectrum, the adjustment scenario would best allow for policy continuity with limited but tangible improvements both in agricultural competitiveness and environmental performance. There are however serious doubts as to whether this scenario could adequately address the important climate and environmental challenges of the future, which also underpin the long-term sustainability of agriculture.

The integration scenario breaks new ground with enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments. The analysis shows that greening is possible at a reasonable cost to farmers although some administrative burden cannot be avoided. Similarly, a new impetus in rural development is possible provided that the new possibilities are efficiently used by Member States and regions and that the common strategic framework with the other EU funds does not remove synergies with Pillar I or weaken rural development's distinctive strengths. If the right balance is struck, this scenario would best address the long term sustainability of agriculture and rural areas.

On this basis the impact assessment concludes that the integration scenario is the most balanced in progressively aligning the CAP with the EU's strategic objectives and this balance is also found in the implementation of the different elements in the legislative proposals. It will also be essential to develop an evaluation framework to measure the performance of the CAP with a common set of indicators linked to policy objectives.

Simplification has been an important consideration throughout the process and should be enhanced in a variety of ways, for instance in the streamlining of cross compliance and market instruments, or the design of the small farmers scheme. In addition, the greening of direct payments should be designed in such a way as to minimize administrative burden including the costs of controls.

3. LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

It is proposed to maintain the current structure of the CAP in two pillars with annual mandatory measures of general application in Pillar I complemented by voluntary measures better tailored to national and regional specificities under a multi-annual programming approach in Pillar II. However, the new design of direct payments seeks to better exploit synergies with Pillar II, which is in turn placed under a Common Strategic Framework to better coordinate with other EU shared management funds.

On this basis, the current structure of four basic legal instruments is also maintained, albeit with the scope of the financing regulation enlarged to bring together common provisions into what is now called the horizontal regulation.

The proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The CAP is a truly common policy: it is an area of shared competence between the EU and the Member States that is being handled at EU level with a view to maintaining a sustainable and diverse agriculture throughout the EU, addressing important cross-border issues such as climate change and reinforcing solidarity among Member States. In the light of the importance of future challenges for food security, the environment and territorial balance, the CAP remains a policy of strategic importance to ensure the most effective response to the policy challenges and the most efficient use of budgetary resources. In addition, it is proposed to maintain the current structure of instruments in two pillars where Member States have more leeway to tailor solutions to their local specificities and also co-finance Pillar II. The new European Innovation Partnership and risk management toolkit are also placed within Pillar II. At the same time the policy will be better aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy (including a common framework with other EU funds) and a number of improvements and simplification elements introduced. Finally, the analysis carried out in the framework of the impact assessment clearly shows the cost of no action in terms of negative economic, environmental and social consequences.

In light of the new Single CMO regulation, it is also necessary to adapt Council Regulation (EU) No … determining measures on fixing certain aids, refunds and prices related to the single common organization of agricultural markets. Thus the proposed Council regulation having Article 43(3) of the Treaty as a legal basis includes the conditions for the Commission to fix certain aids and refunds such as aid amounts for the supply of milk products to children, export refunds and specific provisions on export refunds for cereals and rice.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATION

The MFF proposal provides that a significant part of the EU budget should continue to be dedicated to agriculture, which is a common policy of strategic importance. Thus, in current prices, it is proposed that the CAP should focus on its core activities with EUR 317.2 billion allocated to Pillar I and EUR 101.2 billion to Pillar II over the 2014-2020 period.

The Pillar I and Pillar II funding is complemented by additional funding of EUR 17.1 billion consisting of EUR 5.1 billion for research and innovation, EUR 2.5 billion for food safety and EUR 2.8 billion for food support for the most deprived persons in other headings of the MFF, as well as of EUR 3.9 billion in a new reserve for crises in the agricultural sector and up to EUR 2.8 billion in the European Globalization Adjustment Fund outside the MFF, thus bringing the total budget to EUR 435.6 billion over the 2014-2020 period.

As regards distribution of support among Member States, it is proposed that all Member States with direct payments below 90% of the EU average will see one third of this gap closed. The national ceilings in the direct payments regulation are calculated on this basis.

The distribution of rural development support is based on objective criteria linked to the policy objectives taking into account the current distribution. As is the case today, less developed regions should continue to benefit from higher co-financing rates, which will also apply to certain measures such as knowledge transfer, producer groups, cooperation and Leader.

Some flexibility for transfers between pillars is introduced (up to 5% of direct payments): from Pillar I to Pillar II to allow Member States to reinforce their rural development policy, and from Pillar II to Pillar I for those Member States where the level of direct payments remains below 90% of the EU average.

Details on the financial impact of the CAP reform proposals are set out in the financial statement accompanying the proposals.

2011/0287 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on "The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future"[7] set out potential challenges, objectives and orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013. In the light of the debate on that Communication, the Common Agricultural Policy should be reformed with effect from 1 January 2014. That reform should cover all the main instruments of the CAP, including Council Regulation (EU) No [COM(2010)799] of […] establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)[8].

(2) In view of the scope of the CAP reform and in particular of the replacement of Regulation [COM(2010)799] by Regulation (EU) No [COM(2011) 626] of the European Parliament and of the Council of […], establishing a common organisation of the market in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)[9], it is appropriate to adapt the measures laid down by Council Regulation (EU) No [COM(2011)193] of […] determining measures on fixing certain aids, refunds and prices related to the single common organisation of agricultural markets[10]. For sake of clarity, it is necessary to repeal that Regulation and replace it with a new one.

(3) To ensure the proper functioning of the aid scheme for the supply of certain processed milk products to children in educational establishments and to ensure flexibility in the scheme's administration, appropriate conditions should be set to fix the amounts of aid for all milk and other eligible milk products.

(4) To ensure the proper functioning of the export refund system, appropriate measures should be set to fix the amount of the refunds. In addition, in the cereals and rice sectors appropriate measures should be set to fix the corrective amounts and to provide for the adjustment of the refund amount in line with any changes in the level of the intervention price.

(5) Pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [COM(2010)799] several sectoral measures, including on the scheme for production refunds for sugar will expire at the end of the 2014/2015 marketing year for sugar. After the repeal of Regulation (EU) No [COM(2010)799], the relevant provisions of that Regulation related to that scheme should nevertheless continue to apply until the end of the schemes concerned. For that reason, the measures on fixing of the production refund for the products of the sugar sector as provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No [COM(2011)193] should continue to apply until the end of the 2014/2015 marketing year.

(6) To ensure an efficient day-to-day management of the Common Agricultural Policy, the measures on fixing aid, refunds and prices set out in this Regulation should be limited to the broad conditions allowing concrete amounts to be laid down in the specific circumstances of each case. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to lay down those amounts. Those powers should be exercised with the assistance of the Committee established by Article 162(1) of Regulation (EU) No [COM(2011)…] and in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers[11]. Furthermore, to ensure a swift response to fast changing market situations, the Commission should be empowered to fix new refund levels and, in the cereals and rice sectors, to adapt the corrective amount without applying Regulation (EU) No 182/2011,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1 Scope

This Regulation provides for measures on fixing of certain aids and refunds related to the single common organisation of agricultural markets established by Regulation (EU) No [COM(2011)…] ("Single CMO Regulation").

Article 2 Aid for the supply of milk products to children

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, fix the aid amounts for the supply of milk products to children, as referred to in Article 24(4) of the Single CMO Regulation, taking into account the need to sufficiently encourage the supply of milk products to educational establishments.

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, fix the aid amounts for eligible milk products other than milk, taking into account the milk components of the product concerned.

The implementing acts provided for in the first and second paragraph of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2) of the Single CMO Regulation.

Article 3 Export refund fixation

1. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, fix the export refunds, as referred to in Article 135 of the Single CMO Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in 162(2) of the Single CMO Regulation.

2. Refunds referred to in paragraph 1 may be fixed:

(a) at regular intervals, for a list of products fixed pursuant to paragraph 1;

(b) by tendering procedures for cereals, rice, sugar and milk and milk products.

The amount of the refund may, where necessary, be adjusted by the Commission, by means of implementing acts, either at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative.

3. One or more of the following aspects shall be taken into account when refunds for a certain product are being fixed:

(a) the existing situation and the future trend with regard to:

(i) prices and availabilities of that product on the Union market,

(ii) prices for that product on the world market.

(b) the aims of the common market organisation which are to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on this market;

(c) the need to avoid disturbances likely to cause a prolonged imbalance between supply and demand on the Union market;

(d) the economic aspect of the proposed exports;

(e) the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty;

(f) the need to establish a balance between the use of Union basic products in the manufacture of processed goods for export to third countries and the use of third country products brought in under processing arrangements;

(g) the most favourable marketing costs and transport costs from Union markets to Union ports or other places of export together with forwarding costs to the countries of destination;

(h) demand on the Union market;

(i) in respect of the pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat sectors, the difference between prices within the Union and prices on the world market for the quantity of feed grain input required for the production in the Union of products of those sectors.

Article 4 Specific measures on export refunds for cereals and rice

1. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, fix a corrective amount applicable to the export refunds fixed in respect of the cereals and rice sectors. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in 162(2) of the Single CMO Regulation. Where necessary, the Commission may, by means of implementing acts, amend the corrective amounts.

The Commission may apply the first subparagraph to products of the cereals and rice sectors that are exported in the form of processed goods in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009[12].

2. For the first three months of the marketing year, the refund applicable to exports of malt, either in storage at the end of the previous marketing year or made from barley in stock at that time, shall be that which would have applied in respect of the export licence in question to exports made during the last month of the preceding marketing year.

3. The refund on products listed in points (a) and (b) of Part I of Annex I to the Single CMO Regulation, established in accordance with Article 136(2) of the Single CMO Regulation, may be adjusted by the Commission, by means of implementing acts, in line with any changes in the level of the intervention price.

The first subparagraph may be applied, in whole or in part, to products listed in points (c) and (d) of Part I of Annex I to the Single CMO Regulation as well as to products listed in Part I of that Annex I and exported in the form of processed goods in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1216/2009. In that case, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, correct the adjustment referred to in the first subparagraph by applying a coefficient expressing the ratio between the quantity of basic product and the quantity thereof contained in the processed product exported or used in the goods exported.

The implementing acts provided for in the first and second subparagraph of this paragraph shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2) of the Single CMO Regulation.

Article 5 Repeals

1. Regulation (EU) No […] is repealed.

However, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No […] shall continue to apply to the sugar sector until 30 September 2015.

2. References to Regulation (EU) No […] shall be construed as references to this Regulation and be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 6 Entry into force and application

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2014.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels

For the Council

The President

ANNEX CORRELATION TABLE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5

Regulation (EU) No […] || This Regulation

1 || 1

2 || -

3 || -

4 || -

5 || -

6 || -

7 || 2

8 || -

9 || 3

10 || 4

11 || -

12 || -

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative

- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy;

- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation);

- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy;

- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013;

- Proposal for a Council Regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;

- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers.

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure[13]

Policy Area Title 05 of Heading 2

1.3. Nature of the proposal/initiative (Legislative framework for the CAP post 2013)

x The proposal/initiative relates to a new action

¨ The proposal/initiative relates to a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action[14]

x The proposal/initiative relates to the extension of an existing action

x The proposal/initiative relates to an action redirected towards a new action

1.4. Objectives 1.4.1. The Commission's multiannual strategic objective(s) targeted by the proposal/initiative

In order to promote resource efficiency with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural development in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy, the objectives of the CAP are:

- Viable food production;

- Sustainable management of natural resources and climate action;

- Balanced territorial development.

1.4.2. Specific objective(s) and ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

Specific objectives for Policy area 05:

Specific objective No 1:

To provide environmental public goods

Specific objective No 2:

To compensate for production difficulties in areas with specific natural constraints

Specific objective No 3:

To pursue climate change mitigation and adaptation actions

Specific objective No 4:

To manage the EU budget (CAP) in accordance with high standards of financial management

Specific objective for ABB 05 02 - Interventions in agricultural markets:

Specific objective No 5:

To improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and enhance its value share in the food chain

Specific objective for ABB 05 03 - Direct aids:

Specific objective No 6:

To contribute to farm incomes and limit farm income variability

Specific objectives for ABB 05 04 – Rural development:

Specific objective No 7

To foster green growth through innovation

Specific objective No 8:

To support rural employment and maintain the social fabric of rural areas

Specific objective No 9

To improve the rural economy and promote diversification

Specific objective No 10

To allow for structural diversity in farming systems

1.4.3. Expected result(s) and impact

It is not possible to set quantitative targets for impact indicators at this stage. Although the policy can steer in a certain direction, the broad economic, environmental and social outcomes measured by such indicators would ultimately also depend on the impact from a range of external factors, which recent experience indicates have become significant and unpredictable. Further analysis is on-going, to be ready for the period post-2013.

As regards the direct payments, Member States will have the possibility to decide, to a limited degree, on the implementation of certain components of the direct payment schemes.

For rural development, the expected results and impact will depend on the rural development programmes that Member States will submit to the Commission. Member States will be asked to set targets in their programmes.

1.4.4. Indicators of results and impact

The proposals provide for the establishment of a common monitoring and evaluation framework with a view to measuring the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy. That framework shall include all instruments related to the monitoring and evaluation of CAP measures and in particular of the direct payments, market measures, rural development measures and of the application of cross compliance.

The impact of these CAP measures shall be measured in relation to the following objectives:

(a) viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability;

(b) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil and water;

(c) balanced territorial development, with a focus on rural employment, growth and poverty in rural areas.

By means of implementing acts, the Commission shall define the set of indicators specific to these objectives and areas.

Moreover, as regards rural development, a reinforced common monitoring and evaluation system is proposed. That system aims (a) to demonstrate the progress and achievements of rural development policy and assess the impact, effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of rural development policy interventions, (b) to contribute to better targeted support for rural development, and (c) to support a common learning process related to monitoring and evaluation. The Commission will establish, by means of implementing act, a list of common indicators linked to the policy priorities.

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative 1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term

In order to meet the multi-annual strategic objectives of the CAP which are a direct translation of the Europe 2020 strategy for European rural areas and to fulfil the relevant requirements of the Treaty, the proposals aim to lay down the legislative framework for the Common Agricultural Policy for the period after 2013.

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement

The future CAP will not only be a policy that caters for a small, albeit essential, part of the EU economy, but also a policy of strategic importance for food security, the environment and territorial balance. Thus, the CAP, as a truly common policy, makes the most efficient use of limited budgetary resources in maintaining a sustainable agriculture throughout the EU, addressing important cross-border issues such as climate change and reinforcing solidarity among Member States.

As mentioned in the Commission communication "A Budget for Europe 2020"[15], the CAP is a genuinely European policy. Instead of operating 27 separate agricultural policies and budgets, Member States pool resources to operate a single European policy with a single European budget. This naturally means that the CAP accounts for a significant proportion of the EU budget. However, this approach is both more efficient and economical than an uncoordinated national approach.

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

On the basis of the evaluation of the current policy framework, an extensive consultation with stakeholders as well as an analysis of future challenges and needs, a comprehensive impact assessment has been carried out. More details can be found in the impact assessment and the explanatory memorandum that are accompanying the legal proposals.

1.5.4. Coherence and possible synergy with other relevant instruments

The legislative proposals concerned by this financial statement should be seen in the broader context of the proposal for a single framework regulation with common rules for the common strategic framework funds (EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund and EMFF). That framework regulation will make an important contribution to reducing administrative burden, to spending EU funds in an effective way, and to put simplification into practice. This also underpins the new concepts of the common strategic framework for all these funds and the upcoming Partnership Contracts which will also cover these funds.

The common strategic framework, which will be established, will translate the objectives and priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy into priorities for the EAFRD together with the ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund and EMFF, which will ensure an integrated use of the funds to deliver common objectives.

The common strategic framework will also set out coordination mechanisms with other relevant Union policies and instruments.

Moreover, as regards the CAP, significant synergies and simplification effects will be obtained by harmonising and aligning the management and control rules for the first (EAGF) and second (EAFRD) pillar of the CAP. The strong link between the EAGF and the EAFRD should be maintained and the structures already in place in the Member States be sustained.

1.6. Duration and financial impact

x Proposal/initiative of limited duration (for the draft regulations on direct payment schemes, rural development and transitional regulations)

– x Proposal/initiative in effect from 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2020

– x Financial impact for the period of the next multi-annual financial framework. For rural development, impact on payments to 2023.

x Proposal/initiative of unlimited duration (for the draft regulation on the single CMO and the horizontal regulation)

– Implementation from 2014.

1.7. Management mode(s) envisaged[16]

x Centralised direct management by the Commission

¨ Centralised indirect management with the delegation of implementation tasks to:

– ¨ executive agencies

– ¨ bodies set up by the Communities[17]

– ¨ national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission

– ¨ persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union and identified in the relevant basic act within the meaning of Article 49 of the Financial Regulation

x Shared management with the Member States

¨ Decentralised management with third countries

¨ Joint management with international organisations (to be specified)

Comments

No substantive change compared to the present situation, i.e. the bulk of expenditure concerned by the legislative proposals on the CAP reform will be managed by shared management with the Member States. However, a very minor part will continue to fall under centralised direct management by the Commission.

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES 2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules

In terms of monitoring and evaluation of the CAP, the Commission will present a report to the European Parliament and the Council every 4 years, with the first report to be presented not later than end 2017.

This is complemented by specific provisions in all areas of the CAP, with various comprehensive reporting and notifications requirements to be specified in the implementing rules.

As regards rural development, rules are also provided for monitoring at programme level, which will be aligned with the other funds, and which will be coupled with ex ante, on-going and ex post evaluations.

2.2. Management and control system 2.2.1. Risk(s) identified

There are more than seven million beneficiaries of the CAP, receiving support under a large variety of different aid schemes, each of which having detailed and sometimes complex eligibility criteria.

The reduction in the error rate in the domain of the common agricultural policy can already be considered as a trend. Thus, most recently an error rate close to 2% confirms the overall positive assessment of previous years. It is the intention to continue the efforts in order to achieve an error rate below 2%.

2.2.2. Control method(s) envisaged

The legislative package, in particular the proposal for the regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, envisages maintaining and reinforcing the current system established by Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005. It provides for a compulsory administrative structure at Member State level, centred around accredited paying agencies, which are responsible for carrying out controls at final beneficiary level in accordance with the principles set out under point 2.3. Every year, the head of each paying agency is required to provide a statement of assurance which covers the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts, the proper functioning of the internal control systems and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. An independent audit body is required to provide an opinion on all these three elements.

The Commission will continue to audit agricultural expenditure, using a risk-based approach in order to ensure that its audits are targeted to the areas of highest risk. Where these audits reveal that expenditure has been incurred in breach of Union rules, it will exclude the amounts concerned from Union financing under the conformity clearance system.

As regards the cost of controls, a detailed analysis is provided in annex 8 to the impact assessment accompanying the legislative proposals.

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

The legislative package, in particular the proposal for the regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, envisages maintaining and reinforcing the current detailed systems for controls and penalties to be applied by the paying agencies, with common basis features and special rules tailored to the specificities of each aid regime. The systems generally provide for exhaustive administrative controls of 100% of the aid applications, cross-checks with other databases where this is considered appropriate as well as pre-payment on-the-spot checks of a minimum number of transactions, depending on the risk associated with the regime in question. If these on-the-spot checks reveal a high number of irregularities, additional checks must be carried out. In this context, the by far most important system is the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), which in financial year 2010 covered around 80% of total expenditure under the EAGF and the EAFRD. For Member States with properly functioning control systems and low error rates, the Commission will be empowered to allow for a reduction of the number of on-the-spot checks.

The package further envisages that Member States shall prevent, detect and correct irregularities and fraud, impose effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties as laid down in Union legislation or national law, and recover any irregular payments plus interests. It includes an automatic clearance mechanism for irregularity cases, which provides that if recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years in the case of legal proceedings, the amounts not recovered shall be borne by the Member State concerned. This mechanism will be a strong incentive for Member States to recover irregular payments as quickly as possible.

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

The amounts indicated in this financial statement are expressed in current prices and in commitments.

In addition to the changes resulting from the legislative proposals as listed in the accompanying tables below, the legislative proposals imply further changes which have no financial impact.

For any of the years in the period 2014-2020, the application of financial discipline cannot be excluded at this stage. However, this will not depend on the reform proposals as such, but on other factors, such as the execution of direct aids or future developments in the agricultural markets.

As concerns direct aids, the extended net ceilings for 2014 (calendar year 2013) included in the proposal regarding transition are higher than the amounts allocated to direct aids indicated in the accompanying tables. The purpose of this extension is to ensure a continuation of the existing legislation in a scenario in which all the other elements would remain unchanged, without prejudice to the possible need for applying the financial discipline mechanism.

The reform proposals contain provisions giving Member States a set degree of flexibility in relation to their allocation of direct aids respectively rural development. In case Member States decide to use that flexibility, this will have financial consequences within the given financial amounts, which cannot be quantified at this stage.

This financial statement does not take into account the possible use of the crises reserve. It should be underlined that the amounts taken into account for market-related expenditure are based on no public intervention buying-in and other measures related to a crisis situation in any sectors.

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

Table 1: Amounts for the CAP including complementary amounts foreseen in the MFF proposals and the CAP reform proposals

In million EUR (current prices)

Budget year || 2013 || 2013 adjusted (1) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 2014-2020

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Inside MFF || || || || || || || || || ||

Heading 2 || || || || || || || || || ||

Direct aids and market-related expenditure (2) (3) (4) || 44 939 || 45 304 || 44 830 || 45 054 || 45 299 || 45 519 || 45 508 || 45 497 || 45 485 || 317 193

Estimated assigned revenue || 672 || 672 || 672 || 672 || 672 || 672 || 672 || 672 || 672 || 4 704

P1 Direct aids and market-related expenditure (with assigned revenue) || 45 611 || 45 976 || 45 502 || 45 726 || 45 971 || 46 191 || 46 180 || 46 169 || 46 157 || 321 897

P2 Rural development (4) || 14 817 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 14 451 || 101 157

Total || 60 428 || 60 428 || 59 953 || 60 177 || 60 423 || 60 642 || 60 631 || 60 620 || 60 608 || 423 054

Heading 1 || || || || || || || || || ||

CSF Agricultural research and innovation || N.A. || N.A. || 682 || 696 || 710 || 724 || 738 || 753 || 768 || 5 072

Most deprived persons || N.A. || N.A. || 379 || 387 || 394 || 402 || 410 || 418 || 427 || 2 818

Total || N.A. || N.A. || 1 061 || 1 082 || 1 104 || 1 126 || 1 149 || 1 172 || 1 195 || 7 889

Heading 3 || || || || || || || || || ||

Food safety || N.A. || N.A. || 350 || 350 || 350 || 350 || 350 || 350 || 350 || 2 450

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Outside MFF || || || || || || || || || ||

Reserve for agricultural crises || N.A. || N.A. || 531 || 541 || 552 || 563 || 574 || 586 || 598 || 3 945

European Globalisation Fund (EGF) || || || || || || || || || ||

Of which maximum available for agriculture: (5) || N.A. || N.A. || 379 || 387 || 394 || 402 || 410 || 418 || 427 || 2 818

|| || || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL || || || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL Commission proposals (MFF + outside MFF) + assigned revenue || 60 428 || 60 428 || 62 274 || 62 537 || 62 823 || 63 084 || 63 114 || 63 146 || 63 177 || 440 156

TOTAL MFF proposals (i.e. excluding Reserve and EGF) + assigned revenue || 60 428 || 60 428 || 61 364 || 61 609 || 61 877 || 62 119 || 62 130 || 62 141 || 62 153 || 433 393

Notes:

(1) Taking into account legislative changes already agreed, i.e. voluntary modulation for the UK and Article 136 "unspent amounts" will cease to apply by the end of 2013.

(2) The amounts relate to the proposed annual ceiling for the first pillar. However, it should also be noted that it is proposed to move negative expenditure from accounting clearance (currently under budget item 05 07 01 06) to assigned revenue (under item 67 03). For details, see estimated revenue table on the page below.

(3) The 2013 figures include the amounts for veterinary and phytosanitary measures as well as market measures for the fisheries sector.

(4) The amounts in the table above are in line with those in the Commission communication "A Budget for Europe 2020" (COM(2011)500 final of 29 June 2011). However, it remains to be decided if the MFF will reflect the transfer that is proposed for the envelope of one Member State of the cotton national restructuring programme to rural development as from 2014, implying an adjustment (4 million EUR per year) of the amounts for respectively the EAGF sub-ceiling and for pillar 2. In the tables in the sections below, the amounts have been transferred, irrespective of them being reflected in the MFF.

(5) In accordance with the Commission communication "A Budget for Europe 2020" (COM(2011)500 final), a total amount of up to 2.5 billion EUR in 2011 prices will be available under the European Globalisation Fund for providing additional support to farmers suffering from effects of globalisation. In the table above, the breakdown by year in current prices is only indicative. The proposal for the inter-institutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (COM(2011)403 final of 29 June 2011) sets out, for the EGF, an overall maximum annual amount of 429 million EUR in 2011 prices.

3.2. Estimated impact on expenditure 3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on expenditure

Table 2: Estimated revenue as well as expenditure for Policy Area 05 within Heading 2

In million EUR (current prices)

Budget year || 2013 || 2013 adjusted || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 2014-2020

REVENUE || || || || || || || || || ||

123 – Sugar production charge (own resources) || 123 || 123 || 123 || 123 || || || || || || 246

|| || || || || || || || || ||

67 03 - Assigned revenue || 672 || 672 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 5 187

of which: ex 05 07 01 06 - Accounting clearance || 0 || 0 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 483

Total || 795 || 795 || 864 || 864 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 741 || 5 433

EXPENDITURE || || || || || || || || || ||

05 02 - Markets (1) || 3 311 || 3 311 || 2 622 || 2 641 || 2 670 || 2 699 || 2 722 || 2 710 || 2 699 || 18 764

05 03 - Direct aids (before capping) (2) || 42 170 || 42 535 || 42 876 || 43 081 || 43 297 || 43 488 || 43 454 || 43 454 || 43 454 || 303 105

05 03 – Direct aids (after capping) || 42 170 || 42 535 || 42 876 || 42 917 || 43 125 || 43 303 || 43 269 || 43 269 || 43 269 || 302 027

|| || || || || || || || || ||

05 04 - Rural development (before capping) || 14 817 || 14 451 || 14 455 || 14 455 || 14 455 || 14 455 || 14 455 || 14 455 || 14 455 || 101 185

05 04 - Rural development (after capping) || 14 817 || 14 451 || 14 455 || 14 619 || 14 627 || 14 640 || 14 641 || 14 641 || 14 641 || 102 263

|| || || || || || || || || ||

05 07 01 06 - Accounting clearance || -69 || -69 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 60 229 || 60 229 || 59 953 || 60 177 || 60 423 || 60 642 || 60 631 || 60 620 || 60 608 || 423 054

NET BUDGET after assigned revenue || || || 59 212 || 59 436 || 59 682 || 59 901 || 59 890 || 59 879 || 59 867 || 417 867

Notes:

(1) For 2013, preliminary estimate based on Draft Budget 2012 taking into account legal adjustments already agreed for 2013 (e.g. wine ceiling, abolition of potato starch premium, dried fodder) as well as some foreseen developments. For all years, the estimates assume that there will be no additional financing need for support measures due to market disturbances or crises.

(2) The 2013 amount includes an estimate of wine grubbing-up 2012.

Table 3: Calculation of the financial impact by budget chapter of the CAP reform proposals as regards revenue and CAP expenditure

In million EUR (current prices)

Budget year || 2013 || 2013 adjusted || || TOTAL 2014-2020

|| || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 ||

REVENUE || || || || || || || || || ||

123 – Sugar production charge (own resources) || 123 || 123 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

|| || || || || || || || || ||

67 03 - Assigned revenue || 672 || 672 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 483

of which: ex 05 07 01 06 - Accounting clearance || 0 || 0 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 483

Total || 795 || 795 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 483

EXPENDITURE || || || || || || || || || ||

05 02 - Markets (1) || 3 311 || 3 311 || -689 || -670 || -641 || -612 || -589 || -601 || -612 || -4 413

05 03 - Direct aids (before capping) (2) || 42 170 || 42 535 || -460 || -492 || -534 || -577 || -617 || -617 || -617 || -3 913

05 03 - Direct aids – Estimated product of capping to be transferred to rural development || || || 0 || -164 || -172 || -185 || -186 || -186 || -186 || -1 078

05 04 - Rural development (before capping) || 14 817 || 14 451 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 28

05 04 - Rural development – Estimated product of capping to be transferred from direct aids || || || 0 || 164 || 172 || 185 || 186 || 186 || 186 || 1 078

05 07 01 06 - Accounting clearance || -69 || -69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 69 || 483

Total || 60 229 || 60 229 || -1 076 || -1 089 || -1 102 || -1 115 || -1 133 || -1 144 || -1 156 || -7 815

NET BUDGET after assigned revenue || || || -1 145 || -1 158 || -1 171 || -1 184 || -1 202 || -1 213 || -1 225 || -8 298

Notes:

(1) For 2013, preliminary estimate based on Draft Budget 2012 taking into account legal adjustments already agreed for 2013 (e.g. wine ceiling, abolition of potato starch premium, dried fodder) as well as some foreseen developments. For all years, the estimates assume that there will be no additional financing need for support measures due to market disturbances or crises.

(2) The 2013 amount includes an estimate of wine grubbing-up 2012.

Table 4: Calculation of the financial impact of the CAP reform proposals as regards CAP market-related expenditure

In million EUR (current prices)

BUDGET YEAR || || Legal base || Estimated needs || Changes to 2013 ||

|| || || 2013 (1) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 2014-2020

Exceptional measures: streamlined and extended scope of legal base || || Art. 154, 155, 156 || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm

Removal of intervention for durum wheat and sorghum || || ex Art.10 || pm || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Food programmes for most deprived || (2) || Ex-Art. 27 of Reg 1234/2007 || 500.0 || -500.0 || -500.0 || -500.0 || -500.0 || -500.0 || -500.0 || -500.0 || -3 500.0

Private storage (Flax fibre) || || Art. 16 || N.A. || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || Pm

Aid for cotton - Restructuring || (3) || ex Art. 5 of Reg. 637/2008 || 10.0 || -4.0 || -4.0 || -4.0 || -4.0 || -4.0 || -4.0 || -4.0 || -28.0

Setting-up aid for F&V producer groups || || ex Art. 117 || 30.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || -15.0 || -15.0 || -30.0 || -30.0 || -90.0

School fruit scheme || || Art. 21 || 90.0 || 60.0 || 60.0 || 60.0 || 60.0 || 60.0 || 60.0 || 60.0 || 420.0

Abolition hops PO || || ex Art. 111 || 2.3 || -2.3 || -2.3 || -2.3 || -2.3 || -2.3 || -2.3 || -2.3 || -15.9

Optional private storage for skimmed-milk powder || || Art. 16 || N.A. || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm || pm

Abolition aid for use of skimmed milk/SMP as feedingstuff/casein and use of casein || || ex Art. 101, 102 || pm || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

Optional private storage for butter || (4) || Art. 16 || 14.0 || [-1.0] || [-14.0] || [-14.0] || [-14.0] || [-14.0] || [-14.0] || [-14.0] || [-85.0]

Abolition milk promotional levy || || ex Art. 309 || pm || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

TOTAL 05 02 || || || || || || || || || || ||

Net effect of reform proposals (5) || || || || -446.3 || -446.3 || -446.3 || -461.3 || -461.3 || -476.3 || -476.3 || -3 213.9

Notes:

(1) The 2013 needs are estimated based on the Commission's Draft Budget 2012, except for (a) the fruit & vegetables sectors where the needs are based on the financial statement of the respective reforms and (b) any legal changes already agreed.

(2) The 2013 amount corresponds to Commission proposal COM(2010)486. As from 2014, the measure will be financed within Heading 1.

(3) The envelope for the cotton restructuring programme for Greece (4 million EUR/year) will be transferred to rural development as from 2014. The envelope for Spain (6.1 million EUR/year) will go to the Single Payment Scheme as from 2018 (already decided).

(4) Estimated effect in case of non-application of the measure.

(5) In addition to expenditure within chapters 05 02 and 05 03, it is anticipated that direct expenditure within chapters 05 01, 05 07 and 05 08 will be financed by revenue that will be assigned to the EAGF.

Table 5: Calculation of the financial impact of the CAP reform proposals as regards direct aids

In million EUR (current prices)

BUDGET YEAR || || Legal base || Estimated needs || Changes to 2013 ||

|| || 2013 (1) || 2013 adjusted (2) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 2014-2020

|| || || || || || || || || || || ||

Direct aids || || || 42 169.9 || 42 535.4 || 341.0 || 381.1 || 589.6 || 768.0 || 733.2 || 733.2 || 733.2 || 4 279.3

- Changes already decided: || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Phasing-in EU 12 || || || || || 875.0 || 1 133.9 || 1 392.8 || 1 651.6 || 1 651.6 || 1 651.6 || 1 651.6 || 10 008.1

Cotton restructuring || || || || || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 6.1 || 6.1 || 6.1 || 18.4

Health Check || || || || || -64.3 || -64.3 || -64.3 || -90.0 || -90.0 || -90.0 || -90.0 || -552.8

Previous reforms || || || || || -9.9 || -32.4 || -32.4 || -32.4 || -32.4 || -32.4 || -32.4 || -204.2

|| || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Changes due to new CAP reform proposals || || || -459.8 || -656.1 || -706.5 || -761.3 || -802.2 || -802.2 || -802.2 || -4 990.3

Of which: capping || || || || || 0.0 || -164.1 || -172.1 || -184.7 || -185.6 || -185.6 || -185.6 || -1 077.7

|| || || || || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL 05 03 || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Net effect of reform proposals || || || || || -459.8 || -656.1 || -706.5 || -761.3 || -802.2 || -802.2 || -802.2 || -4 990.3

TOTAL EXPENDITURE || || || 42 169.9 || 42 535.4 || 42 876.4 || 42 916.5 || 43 125.0 || 43 303.4 || 43 268.7 || 43 268.7 || 43 268.7 || 302 027.3

Notes:

(1) The 2013 amount includes an estimate of wine grubbing-up 2012.

(2) Taking into account legislative changes already agreed, i.e. voluntary modulation for the UK and Article 136 "unspent amounts" will cease to apply by the end of 2013.

Table 6: Components of direct aids

In million EUR (current prices)

BUDGET YEAR || || || || || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 2014-2020

Annex II || || || || || 42 407.2 || 42 623.4 || 42 814.2 || 42 780.3 || 42 780.3 || 42 780.3 || 256 185.7

Payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and environment (30%) || || || || || 12 866.5 || 12 855.3 || 12 844.3 || 12 834.1 || 12 834.1 || 12 834.1 || 77 068.4

Maximum that can be allocated to the Payment for young farmers (2%) || || || || || 857.8 || 857.0 || 856.3 || 855.6 || 855.6 || 855.6 || 5 137.9

Basic Payment Scheme, Payment for areas with Natural Constraints, Voluntary Coupled Support || || || || || 28 682.9 || 28 911.1 || 29 113.6 || 29 090.6 || 29 090.6 || 29 090.6 || 173 979.4

Maximum that can be taken from the above lines to finance the Small Farmer Scheme (10%) || || || || || 4 288.8 || 4 285.1 || 4 281.4 || 4 278.0 || 4 278.0 || 4 278.0 || 25 689.3

Wine transfers included in Annex II[18] || || || || || 159.9 || 159.9 || 159.9 || 159.9 || 159.9 || 159.9 || 959.1

Capping || || || || || -164.1 || -172.1 || -184.7 || -185.6 || -185.6 || -185.6 || -1 077.7

Cotton || || || || || 256.0 || 256.3 || 256.5 || 256.6 || 256.6 || 256.6 || 1 538.6

POSEI/Small Aegean Islands || || || || || 417.4 || 417.4 || 417.4 || 417.4 || 417.4 || 417.4 || 2 504.4

Table 7: Calculation of the financial impact of the CAP reform proposals as regards transitional measures for granting direct aids in 2014

In million EUR (current prices)

BUDGET YEAR || || Legal base || Estimated needs || Changes to 2013

|| || || 2013 (1) || 2013 adjusted || 2014 (2)

Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 || || || 40 165.0 || 40 530.5 || 541.9

Phasing-in EU 10 || || || || || 616.1

Health Check || || || || || -64.3

Previous reforms || || || || || -9.9

TOTAL 05 03 || || || || ||

TOTAL EXPENDITURE || || || 40 165.0 || 40 530.5 || 41 072.4

Notes:

(1) The 2013 amount includes an estimate of wine grubbing-up 2012.

(2) The extended net ceilings include an estimate of the wine transfers to SPS based on the decisions taken by the Member States for 2013.

Table 8: Calculation of the financial impact of the CAP reform proposals as regards rural development

In million EUR (current prices)

BUDGET YEAR || || Legal base || Rural development allocation || Changes to 2013 ||

|| || || 2013 || 2013 adjusted (1) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 2014-2020

Rural development programmes || || || 14 788.9 || 14 423.4 || || || || || || || ||

Aid for cotton - Restructuring || (2) || || || || 4.0 || 4.0 || 4.0 || 4.0 || 4.0 || 4.0 || 4.0 || 28.0

Product of capping of direct aids || || || || || || 164.1 || 172.1 || 184.7 || 185.6 || 185.6 || 185.6 || 1 077.7

RD envelope excluding technical assistance || (3) || || || || -8.5 || -8.5 || -8.5 || -8.5 || -8.5 || -8.5 || -8.5 || -59.4

Technical assistance || (3) || || 27.6 || 27.6 || 8.5 || 3.5 || 3.5 || 3.5 || 3.5 || 3.5 || 3.5 || 29.4

Prize for local innovative co-operation projects || (4) || || N.A. || N.A. || 0.0 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 30.0

TOTAL 05 04 || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Net effect of reform proposals || || || || || 4.0 || 168.1 || 176.1 || 188.7 || 189.6 || 189.6 || 189.6 || 1 105.7

TOTAL EXPENDITURE (before capping) || || || 14 816.6 || 14 451.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 455.1 || 101 185.5

TOTAL EXPENDITURE (after capping) || || || 14 816.6 || 14 451.1 || 14 455.1 || 14 619.2 || 14 627.2 || 14 639.8 || 14 640.7 || 14 640.7 || 14 640.7 || 102 263.2

Notes:

(1) Adjustments in line with the existing legislation only applicable until the end of financial year 2013.

(2) The amounts in table 1 (section 3.1) are in line with those in the Commission communication "A Budget for Europe 2020" (COM(2011)500 final). However, it remains to be decided if the MFF will reflect the transfer that is proposed for the envelope of one Member State of the cotton national restructuring programme to rural development as from 2014, implying an adjustment (4 million EUR per year) of the amounts for respectively the EAGF sub-ceiling and for pillar 2. In table 8 above, the amounts have been transferred, irrespective of them being reflected in the MFF.

(3) The 2013 amount for technical assistance was fixed based on the initial rural development envelope (transfers from pillar 1 not included).

Technical assistance for 2014-2020 is fixed at 0.25% of the total rural development envelope.

(4) Covered by the amount available for technical assistance.

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || 5 || " Administrative expenditure "

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Note: It is estimated that the legislative proposals will have no impact on appropriations of an administrative nature, i.e. it is the intention that the legislative framework can be implemented with the present level of human resources and administrative expenditure.

|| || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

DG: AGRI ||

 Human resources || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 958.986

 Other administrative expenditure || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 67.928

TOTAL DG AGRI || Appropriations || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 1 026.914

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || (Total commitments = Total payments) || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 1 026.914

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| || || Year N[19] || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 5 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || || || || || || || ||

Payments || || || || || || || ||

3.2.2. Estimated impact on operational appropriations

– ¨ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

– x The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below:

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Indicate objectives and outputs ò || || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

OUTPUTS

Type of output || Average cost of the output || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Total number of outputs || Total cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 5: To improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and enhance its value share in the food chain || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Fruit & vegetables: Marketing through producer organisations (POs)[20] || Propor-tion of the value of produc-tion marke-ted through POs in value of the total produc-tion || || || 830.0 || || 830.0 || || 830.0 || || 830.0 || || 830.0 || || 830.0 || || 830.0 || || 5 810.0

- Wine: National envelope – Restructuring20 || Number of hectares || || 54 326 || 475.1 || 54 326 || 475.1 || 54 326 || 475.1 || 54 326 || 475.1 || 54 326 || 475.1 || 54 326 || 475.1 || 54 326 || 475.1 || || 3 326.0

- Wine: National envelope – Investments20 || || || 1 147 || 178.9 || 1 147 || 178.9 || 1 147 || 178.9 || 1 147 || 178.9 || 1 147 || 178.9 || 1 147 || 178.9 || 1 147 || 178.9 || || 1 252.6

- Wine: National envelope – By-product distillation20 || Hecto-litres || || 700 000 || 98.1 || 700 000 || 98.1 || 700 000 || 98.1 || 700 000 || 98.1 || 700 000 || 98.1 || 700 000 || 98.1 || 700 000 || 98.1 || || 686.4

- Wine: National envelope – Potable alcohol20 || Number of hectares || || 32 754 || 14.2 || 32 754 || 14.2 || 32 754 || 14.2 || 32 754 || 14.2 || 32 754 || 14.2 || 32 754 || 14.2 || 32 754 || 14.2 || || 14.2

- Wine: National envelope – Use of concentrated must20 || Hecto-litres || || 9 || 37.4 || 9 || 37.4 || 9 || 37.4 || 9 || 37.4 || 9 || 37.4 || 9 || 37.4 || 9 || 37.4 || || 261.8

- Wine: National envelope – promotion20 || || || || 267.9 || || 267.9 || || 267.9 || || 267.9 || || 267.9 || || 267.9 || || 267.9 || || 1 875.3

- Other || || || || 720.2 || || 739.6 || || 768.7 || || 797.7 || || 820.3 || || 808.8 || || 797.1 || || 5 452.3

Sub-total for specific objective N°5 || || 2 621.8 || || 2 641.2 || || 2 670.3 || || 2 699.3 || || 2 721.9 || || 2 710.4 || || 2 698.7 || || 18 763.5

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 6: To contribute to farm incomes and limit farm income variability || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Direct income support[21] || Number of hectares paid (in million) || || 161.014 || 42 876.4 || 161.014 || 43 080.6 || 161.014 || 43 297.1 || 161.014 || 43 488.1 || 161.014 || 43 454.3 || 161.014 || 43 454.3 || 161.014 || 43 454.3 || 161.014 || 303 105.0

Sub-total for specific objective N°6 || || 42 876.4 || || 43 080.6 || || 43 297.1 || || 43 488.1 || || 43 454.3 || || 43 454.3 || || 43 454.3 || || 303 105.0

TOTAL COST || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Note: For specific objectives 1 to 4 and 7 to 10, the outputs are still to be determined (see section 1.4.2 above).

3.2.3. Estimated impact on appropriations of an administrative nature 3.2.3.1. Summary

– ¨ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of administrative appropriations

– x The proposal/initiative requires the use of administrative appropriations, as explained below:

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Human resources [22] || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 136.998 || 958.986

Other administrative expenditure || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 9.704 || 67.928

Subtotal HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Outside HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Human resources || || || || || || || ||

Other expenditure of an administrative nature || || || || || || || ||

Subtotal outside HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 146.702 || 1 026.914

3.2.3.2. Estimated requirements of human resources

– ¨ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources

– x The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below:

Note: It is estimated that the legislative proposals will have no impact on appropriations of an administrative nature, i.e. it is the intention that the legislative framework can be implemented with the present level of human resources and administrative expenditure. The figures for the period 2014-2020 are based on the situation for 2011.

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts (or at most to one decimal place)

|| Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents) ||

XX 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) || 1 034 || 1 034 || 1 034 || 1 034 || 1 034 || 1 034 || 1 034

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) || || || || || || ||

 External personnel (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)[23] ||

XX 01 02 01 (CA, INT, SNE from the "global envelope") || 78 || 78 || 78 || 78 || 78 || 78 || 78

XX 01 02 02 (CA, INT, JED, LA and SNE in the delegations) || || || || || || ||

XX 01 04 yy || - at Headquarters || || || || || || ||

- in delegations || || || || || || ||

XX 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct research) || || || || || || ||

Other budget lines (specify) || || || || || || ||

TOTAL[24] || 1 115 || 1 115 || 1 115 || 1 115 || 1 115 || 1 115 || 1 115

XX is the policy area or budget title concerned.

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.

Description of tasks to be carried out:

Officials and temporary agents ||

External personnel ||

3.2.4. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework

– x Proposal/initiative is compatible with the PROPOSALS FOR THE 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework.

– ¨ Proposal/initiative will entail reprogramming of the relevant heading in the multiannual financial framework.

– ¨ Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility instrument or revision of the multiannual financial framework.

3.2.5. Third-party contributions

– The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties

– X The proposal regarding rural development (EAFRD) provides for the co-financing estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || Total

Specify the co-financing body || MS || MS || MS || MS || MS || MS || MS || MS

TOTAL appropriations cofinanced [25] || To be determined || To be determined || To be determined || To be determined || To be determined || To be determined || To be determined || To be determined

3.3. Estimated impact on revenue

– x Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

– ¨ Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

– x on own resources

– x on miscellaneous revenue

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Budget revenue line: || Appropriations available for the ongoing budget year || Impact of the proposal/initiative[26]

Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … insert as many columns as necessary in order to reflect the duration of the impact (see point 1.6)

|| || || || || || || ||

For miscellaneous assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

See tables 2 and 3 in section 3.2.1.

[1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A budget for Europe 2020, COM(2011)500 final, 29.6.2011.

[2] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future, COM(2010)672 final, 18.11.2010.

[3] See in particular the European Parliament resolution of 23 June 2011, 2011/2015(INI), and the Presidency conclusions of 18.3.2011.

[4] The current legislative framework comprises Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (direct payments), Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (market instruments), Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (rural development) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (financing).

[5] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, COM(2011)615 of 6.10.2011.

[6] See Annex 9 of the impact assessment for an overview of the 517 contributions received.

[7] COM(2010) 672 final, 18.11.2010.

[8] OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

[9] COM(2011)….

[10] COM(2011)…………

[11] OJ L 55, 28.2.2011

[12] OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 10.

[13] ABM: Activity-Based Management – ABB: Activity-Based Budgeting.

[14] As referred to in Article 49(6)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

[15] COM(2011)500 final of 29 June 2011.

[16] Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the BudgWeb site: http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html

[17] As referred to in Article 185 of the Financial Regulation.

[18] Direct aids for the period 2014-2020 include an estimate of the wine transfers to SPS based on the decisions taken by the Member States for 2013.

[19] Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

[20] Based on past execution and estimates in the 2012 Draft Budget. For the producer organisations in the fruit & vegetables sector, the amounts are in line with the reform of that sector and, as already indicated in the activity statements of the 2012 Draft Budget, outputs will only be known in late 2011.

[21] Based on potentially eligible areas for 2009.

[22] Based on an average cost of 127 000 EUR for establishment plan post of officials and temporary agents.

[23] CA= Contract Agent; INT= agency staff ("Intérimaire"); JED= "Jeune Expert en Délégation" (Young Experts in Delegations); LA= Local Agent; SNE= Seconded National Expert;

[24] This does not include the sub-ceiling on budget line 05.010404.

[25] This will be set out in the rural development programmes to be submitted by the Member States.

[26] As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 25% for collection costs.