Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "The regional implications of the Common Agricultural Policy on enlargement of the EU"
Date: 2001-11-15
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: common agricultural policy, enlargement of the Union, intra-EU trade

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/3

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The regional implications of the Common
Agricultural Policy on enlargement of the EU’

(2002/C 107/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau on 20 September 2000, under the fifth paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to issue an opinion on this subject and
to instruct Commission 2 (Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries) to undertake the preparatory
work;

having regard to its opinion on pre-accession measures for agriculture — SAPARD (CdR 273/98 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion on the CAP and eastward enlargement (CdR 239/96 fin) (2);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 416/2000 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 2 on 9 October 2001
(rapporteur: Mr Johansson Municipal Commissioner, Gislaved Municipal Council, S/PPE),

adopted unanimously the following opinion at its 41st plenary session on 14 and 15 November 2001
(meeting of 15 November).

Recommendations

1.
The Committee of the Regions believes that agricultural
policy should continue to be ‘common’ after enlargement, in
order to guarantee free movement for, and trade in, food and
agricultural produce in the single market, and to ensure a level
playing field for competition between the Member States. The
Common Agricultural Policy is also designed to ensure a fair
standard of living, and to supply consumers with healthy
foodstuffs at reasonable prices. The Common Agricultural
Policy should be implemented simultaneously at European,
national and regional
in full compliance with the
subsidiarity principle. The areas outlined above must form a
common policy which, falling within the sphere of responsi-
the EU, must comply fully with the principle
bility of
of
financial solidarity and economic and social cohesion
introduced by the Single European Act, so as to ensure that all
European farmers in similar situations are treated in the same
manner.

level,

2.
The financial perspective adopted in connection with
Agenda 2000 paved the way for enlargement within agreed
budget parameters. However, the CoR notes that if the funds
earmarked for enlargement under the agriculture budget are to
suffice, the applicant countries must be phased gradually into
If all the first wave applicant
the direct support system.
countries (Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia,
the Czech
Republic and Cyprus) were to join by 2006, and be immedi-
ately entitled to direct support, then the budget appropriations
would not be enough. The Committee of the Regions therefore
advocates gradually phasing the new members into the
Community direct support system. By letting direct support
levels in the applicant countries rise gradually to the normal
Community level over a transitional period, any harmful
effects of introducing the system too rapidly can be avoided.

(1) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 39.

3.
The Committee of the Regions believes that a reform of
the Common Agricultural Policy is needed, inter alia to ensure
that the needs of less-favoured agricultural regions can be met.
The long-term objective of a revised CAP must be to make
farms more competitive. The Committee welcomes further
opening of the EU to world agricultural markets beyond that
which has already taken place. The Committee supports
the Commission’s intention to establish a multifunctional
agricultural system as the future model for European agri-
culture in the WTO negotiations. Direct payments should be
reduced in line with farm size, with the aim of increasing
support for rural areas. The outermost regions and mountain-
ous regions should be an important element of European
agricultural policy, because emigration of the rural population
from such regions must be prevented for ecological and
economic reasons.

However, in order to promote a European agricultural model
based on high-quality, safe and healthy products and on
respect for the environment, and to ensure that the model
responds to the demands of the European consumer, the CAP
must retain support mechanisms in the form of direct aid
linked to the promotion of this model. There is thus a need to
modify substantially the existing support mechanisms by
removing the link to production and surface area, giving
priority to those farms geared most towards the European
agricultural model we wish to promote and to those facing the
greatest natural disadvantages when competing in the market.
The new aid system must also allow the regions a degree of
subsidiarity in the use of aids for the promotion of structural
and environmental policies in their area. Under the new aid
model, priority would be given to family-run farms.

C 107/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

4.
Agricultural policy for the period post-2006 should be
designed so as to enable agriculture and food production in
competitive agricultural regions to operate in a basically
deregulated market. Price setting should take place as in any
other deregulated market, according to supply and demand.
Market forces will thus ensure that only food for which there
is a demand will be produced. The Committee of the Regions
believes, however, that there is still scope in a deregulated
agricultural market for paying targeted environmental subsidi-
es to farmers in favoured agricultural areas. This should depend
on the extent to which society needs special environmental
measures to, for example, ensure biological diversity, a varied
landscape or leisure areas. Such support should, however, be
uncoupled from the production of
food and agricultural
produce, in order to avoid creating new regulations which
hamper the deregulated market in agriculture.

5.
After 2006, less favoured rural regions and rural regions
which have suffered losses of income as a result of the ongoing
liberalisation of the Common Agricultural Policy should also
receive environmental, rural development and structural aid in
the combination and scope which reflects the needs of the
particular region. The CoR therefore feels that responsibility
for implementing this aid should lie with the individual region
or Member State, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.
The regions and Member States are best placed to understand
to what extent measures are needed to develop leisure facilities,
the environment, and structural and rural development.
Regional implementation of these programmes must continue
to be part of a common regulatory framework, and be
the Common
approved by the Commission. Reform of
Agricultural Policy in line with the recommendations made in
point 3 above must increase the scope for economic support
to the less-favoured agricultural regions, in compliance with
the principle of financial solidarity and economic and social
cohesion.

6.
The Committee of the Regions believes that the ongoing
efforts to support the applicant countries are very important
in ensuring that the new agricultural regions can be successfully
integrated in the common agricultural market. These agricul-
tural regions will probably need a mix of structural, rural
development and environmental aid even in areas where

Brussels, 15 November 2001.

natural conditions are conducive to agriculture. Moreover, the
Committee of the Regions feels it is important for the applicant
countries to be given increased support prior to accession in
the form of advice about the need for land reforms, develop-
ment of processing industries, slaughterhouses, etc. Not least,
the Community must continue to contribute support and
expertise to ensure high levels of food safety in the applicant
countries, in a drive to facilitate integration.

7.
The Committee of the Regions believes that the objective
must be to create as few special regulations or transitional
arrangements as possible in connection with enlargement. The
future agricultural policy model outlined above should be able
to encompass most of the special initiatives which will be
required in the agricultural
regions of many applicant
countries. The Committee of the Regions feels that the Member
States may need to be gradually phased into the Community
direct support system. In principal it suggests that the applicant
countries should meet
the acquis communautaire in all
areas. Any transitional arrangements still needed for the new
members in areas such as food safety would pose constraints
on the free movement of foodstuffs and agricultural products
in the single market. The Committee of the Regions would
therefore call on the Commission to shed light on any
problems which might arise in border areas between the EU15
and new member countries as a result of such transitional
arrangements.

8.
The Committee of the Regions feels that there is an
urgent need to simplify the regulatory framework and facilitate
administration of the Common Agricultural Policy. The current
system is awkward and costs both society and individual
farmers time and money. The Committee of the Regions
believes that the deregulation model outlined here will allow
the complications and red tape associated with the current
market organisation to be reduced. A trend towards less
detailed provisions for the Common Agricultural Policy should
also facilitate the integration of new members in the European
Union. The Committee of the Regions takes a positive view of
the Commission’s proposed system of simplified support for
smaller agricultural concerns. It would, however, be desirable
to cut red-tape and simplify rules and regulations for all
agricultural concerns in the future.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT