European Parliament resolution of 29 March 2007 on the integration of the new Member States into the CAP (2006/2042(INI))
Date: 2007-03-14
Institutions: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, accession to the European Union, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, enlargement of the Union, reform of the CAP

C 27 E/240

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

31.1.2008

Thursday 29 March 2007

64.
Points out that the televised broadcasting of sports competitions is increasingly taking place on
encrypted and pay TV channels, and that such competitions are thus becoming inaccessible to a number
of consumers;

Doping

Recommends that the prevention of and fight against doping should constitute an important concern
65.
for the Member States; calls for a policy aimed at preventing and combating doping and stresses the need to
fight irregularities through checks, research, testing,
long-term monitoring by independent doctors and
through education and, at the same time, prevention and training; calls on professional clubs to adopt a
pledge to combat doping and to monitor compliance through internal checks;

*

*

*

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments

66.
and the parliaments of the Member States, UEFA, FIFA, EPFL, European Club Forum and FIFPro.

P6_TA(2007)0101

The integration of new Member States in the CAP

European Parliament resolution of 29 March 2007 on the integration of the new Member States
into the CAP (2006/2042(INI))

The European Parliament,

— having regard to Article 33 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for
pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and
eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1),

— having regard to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of
Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of
Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak
Republic and the adjustment to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (2),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common
rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers (3),

— having regard to Council Decision 2004/281/EC of the Council of 22 March 2004 adapting the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of
Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of
Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustment to
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, following the reform of the common agricultural
policy (4),

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 87.
(2) OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33.
(3) OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 (OJ L 384, 29.12.2006,

p. 13).

(4) OJ L 93, 30.3.2004, p. 1.

31.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27 E/241

Thursday 29 March 2007

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC)
No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession
of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
to the European Union (1),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the

common agricultural policy (2),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural

development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (3),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organi-

sation of the markets in the sugar sector (4),

— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament,

the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (5),

— having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006 amending and correct-
ing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Reg-
ulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development (EAFRD) (6),

— having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0037/2007),

A. whereas the 2004 enlargement increased substantially the agricultural area (by around 27 %), the num-
ber of farms (by around 60 %), and the number of agricultural workers (by around 57 %) in the EU,
thereby boosting its production potential and making agriculture more important; whereas higher
yields per hectare of food and feed production will release sufficient areas of land for biomass produc-
tion and this situation has contributed to a further differentiation of the European agricultural and rural
fabric; whereas this process has become more marked and has deepened with the accession of Bulgaria
and Romania,

B. whereas agriculture in the majority of the new Member States differs significantly from agriculture in
the EU-15 in terms of production levels and structures and the size of farms, and is characterised by
lower levels of efficiency, technological development and vertical and horizontal integration than in the
old Member States,

C. whereas agriculture plays a greater economic and social role in the majority of the new Member States
than in the EU-15, as the sector's contribution to the gross national income and the proportion of
employees working in the sector are above the EU average,

D. whereas in certain new Member States subsistence and semi-subsistence agriculture are of social, cul-

tural and environmental importance,

E. whereas the new Member States have been successfully and smoothly integrated into the internal mar-
ket, contributing to a significant increase of the European agricultural and food trade; whereas the new
Member States duly introduced and enforced veterinary, phytosanitary, food safety, common market
organisation and other horizontal rules, so that it was not necessary to apply any specific safeguard
measures,

(1) OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 48.
(2) OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 (OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 42).
(3) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 (OJ L 384, 29.12.2006,

p. 8).

(4) OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69,

9.3.2007, p. 3).

(5) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 8.

C 27 E/242

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

31.1.2008

Thursday 29 March 2007

F. whereas the new Member States had to shoulder high social and economic costs in order to adapt to
and integrate the common agricultural policy (CAP) rules and to adapt to the competitive environment
in the EU; whereas the pre-accession funds only partially covered the costs of the adaptation and
integration process before the accession; whereas the accession to the EU revealed the general economic
and competitiveness problems of the new Member States; whereas the CAP has failed to contribute to
solving these problems entirely,

G. whereas the CAP triggered considerable development and significant changes in the agriculture of the
new Member States, and whereas some problems and tensions have arisen mainly due to the fact that
the CAP rules do not support sufficiently the development of a balanced, sustainable agricultural sector,
especially as far as animal husbandry, horticulture and up- and downstream integrations are concerned,

H. whereas the Act of Accession introduced a long phasing-in (nine years), with a low starting level (25 %
of the level applicable in the EU) for the direct payments in the new Member States, though internal
market and budgetary contribution rules fully apply to them; whereas cost and income levels in the
new Member States do not justify this degree of differentiation, which results in unequal conditions for
the new Member States' farmers in terms of competition,

I. whereas the problems which should be tackled in the new Member States are, primarily, those requiring
structural changes to strengthen competitiveness; whereas CAP measures supporting incomes and guar-
anteeing prices significantly contributed to such strengthening,

J. whereas the Commission and the Council have been late or reluctant in understanding the new Mem-
ber States' special problems and offering the necessary help (for example problems on the fruit and
vegetables market, especially as regards soft fruits, cherries and apples, the unjustified ban on Polish
exports by Russia and Ukraine, the modification and proposed abolition of maize intervention rules,
honey imports from third countries),

K. whereas the clear shortage of producer-owners in the food-processing industry in the new Member
States and abuse of the dominant position of distribution chains seriously limit the competitiveness of
the farmers and their possibilities for cooperation and integration,

L. whereas 8 out of 10 new Member States chose the single area payment scheme (SAPS) for the direct

payments,

M. whereas the Community budgetary assistance necessary for rural development in the new Member
States was significantly higher than the available budgetary allocations for the 2004-2006 period, and
at the same time implementation rules of the rural development programmes limited the dynamic
utilisation of Community allocations; whereas those factors have considerably narrowed the impact of
the CAP second pillar in the new Member States, and may persist also during the new financial frame-
work,

Smooth integration, win-win situation

1. Welcomes the fact that the agricultural and food sector of the new Member States has been integrated
thoroughly and smoothly into the common market of the European Union;

2.
Stresses that, although the 2004 enlargement caused disturbances on the agricultural and food markets
of certain new Member States, it contributed significantly to the development of well-established market
relations in the 25 Member States as a whole;

3.
Points out that the agriculture and food sector in both the new and old Member States benefited at
least partially from the enlargement — stakeholders in the new Member States benefited from the higher
level of agricultural support and from the increase of trade possibilities, while the food-processing industry
and international trade in the old Member States progressed, and there was a higher level of investment and
a rise in turnover in the retail sector, in particular in the run-up to enlargement;

31.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27 E/243

Thursday 29 March 2007

4.
Considers that overall the integration of the new Member States has been successful but that the
situation is not always clear cut, as not all farms have seen their incomes rise; points out that the increase
in purchase prices and in subsidies were partially offset by the significant rises in production costs (for
example rises in the cost of fuel, energy, fertiliser, plant protection products and machinery);

5.
Stresses the fact that enlargement has not increased the risk level as regards food safety and animal
and plant health, and notes in this respect that the standards and efficiency of the work of the competent
authorities in the new Member States are above the EU average in certain aspects;

6.
Observes that the 2004 enlargement has not imposed an unbearable burden on the CAP budget and
has not demanded significant changes as far as the EU budget is concerned but that decisions on freezing
the market and direct payment budget and the 2007-2013 financial framework require a sacrifice based on
the principle of solidarity from the EU-15 from 2007 onwards; also notes that, further to the European
Council's decisions of December 2005, EU-15 producers suffered further cutbacks because of the accession
of Bulgaria and Romania, over and above the decisions to implement policies, such as voluntary modula-
tion, to strengthen the second pillar;

Laments the fact that higher quotas were not allocated for either the 2004 or 2007 enlargement, if

7.
only at the level initially planned;

Application of the CAP in the new Member States

8.
Notes that the considerable differences between the agricultural sectors of the new Member States
result in differences in the impact of the application of the CAP and in the scope and vigour of the
challenges the new Member States are facing;

9.
Notes that Community rules were not adequately adapted to the new conditions in certain markets
(e.g. the markets in soft fruit and in starch) following the enlargement of the EU by 10 countries in 2004;

Notes that adaptation to the conditions and rules of the internal market and the application of the
10.
CAP — especially concerning veterinary, phytosanitary, food safety, common market organisation and other
horizontal rules — have resulted in considerable efforts being required from farmers and administrations in
the new Member States;

11.
Considers that over a period of several months the Commission failed to attach adequate importance
to the ban on the export of Polish agricultural products to Ukraine and Russia or to take effective action to
bring it to an end;

12.
Notes that, although EU-financed pre-accession programmes contributed to the preparation for the
application of the CAP and twinning programmes proved to be useful, the original goals were only partly
achieved and the efficiency of the Community measures was limited;

13.
Recalls that the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard)
started with a considerable delay and the scope was also limited, mainly owing to the complicated require-
ments and lack of due-time decisions of the Commission and of authorities of the new Member States;

14.
Observes that certain new Member States face considerable difficulties in implementing the Com-
munity rural development programmes due to the complexity of their rules and the administrative burden
of their management;

15.
Reiterates that, as direct payments play a substantial role in the development and adaptation of the
agricultural sector of the new Member States, their low level in the first years of the phasing-in period not
only hindered the necessary adaptation but created unequal conditions for competition on the internal
market as well, which many operators were economically unable to cope with;

C 27 E/244

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

31.1.2008

Thursday 29 March 2007

16.
Stresses the important role of the rural development programmes both in establishing a new, market-
oriented approach for farms — e.g. in processing and marketing their own products or in tourism — and in
creating alternative sources of income for those who abandon basic agricultural production for economic
reasons;

17.
Notes that the different levels of the direct payments between the EU-10 and EU-15 have not
ensured a level playing field, thus in several new Member States the producers lost ground even on their
domestic markets, a situation to which, primarily, competition resulting from an increase in imports and
exports from third countries due to the changed customs regime also contributed;

Notes that the Commission's reservations towards the new Member States with regard to the alleged
18.
surplus of stock on the day of accession to the EU and its threats to impose large financial penalties were
unjustified in most cases and based on erroneous calculations; further notes that no disruption of the
balance was observed on any of the agricultural markets that could have been the result of this alleged
supply surplus;

19.
Emphasises that the new Member States were forced to apply complementary national direct pay-
ments (CNDP, ‘top-ups’), which can be considered as a form of cofinancing and a quasi-renationalisation of
Community direct payments, and that this led to serious political and economic difficulties in various new
Member States as they imposed a serious burden on the national budgets and limited the possibility of
applying state aid schemes;

Points out that, due to budgetary constraints, contrary to the general objectives and principles of the
20.
CAP and contrary to the modulation in the EU-15, the majority of the new Member States were forced to
regroup a part of their Community rural development allocations for CNDP purposes, as allowed by the Act
of Accession;

21.
Refers to the opinion of some new Member States that fully decoupled, area-based payments do not
contribute entirely to the balanced development and sustainability of their agriculture, and that sector pre-
ferences and/or optional coupled payments could be necessary at least temporarily in certain Member States
until 2013, and should be considered if requested; refers to the successful practice of the fully or partially
coupled CNDP and temporary state aid measures in this respect;

Observes that the majority of new Member States would like to continue the application of the single
22.
area payment scheme (SAPS) as long as possible, since the switch to the Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
means extremely high administrative and technical burdens and the SAPS is completely compatible with a
future policy of decoupled payments;

23.
Considers that it is necessary to implement cross-compliance rules and requirements concerning
sound agricultural practices and environmental conditions both in the new and the old Member States;
proposes to introduce the cross-compliance rules gradually, with full implementation by the end of the
phasing-in period; also proposes that the new Member States be given the option of postponing the appli-
cation of the cross-compliance rules until the end of the phasing-in of the direct payments; proposes further
that the requirements concerning good agricultural and environmental conditions remain in force at least
during the SAPS period as the majority of the new Member States may have difficulties in achieving con-
formity with the complex and costly cross-compliance rules;

24. Welcomes the fact that the Council has adopted the Commission's proposal on the extension of the
SAPS until the end of 2010 and on the involvement of new Member States in the energy crop aid scheme;

25.
Calls on the Commission, in the context of simplifying and rationalising the implementation of the
CAP, the direct payment schemes and the rural development programmes, to take account of the problems
faced primarily by the new Member States and to propose appropriate solutions without departing from the
implementing rules for the CAP;

31.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27 E/245

Stresses that the Commission should take the special problems and concerns of the new Member

26.
States more into account in its decisions within the framework of the CAP;

Thursday 29 March 2007

27.
Expresses its serious concern regarding the Commission's recent proposal to completely abolish the
intervention system in respect of maize from 2007; notes that the way the proposal was presented is
contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU given the timing, the lack of a proper evaluation —
especially as regards implications for the common organisation of the market in cereals and the area-based
direct payments — and the lack of alternatives or transitional periods; is of the opinion that premature
abolition of the maize intervention system would probably have serious consequences;

Believes that, in the spirit of the 2003 CAP reform, the introduction of area payments for soft fruit
28.
produced for processing should be considered along with the possibility of making them conditional on
compulsory membership of food-processing groups or producers' organisations and the requirement to sell
products under commercial contracts, which could contribute to increasing competitiveness in the soft fruit
sector and improving the situation for growers in Member States, in particular Poland;

29.
Considers that further changes are necessary in the agricultural production and rural fabric of the
new Member States and emphasises that CAP rules and Community aid have to assist this procedure;
stresses that it is crucial to effect these necessary changes in a cushioned way, as the agriculture-bound
rural society and economy of the new Member States could not tolerate too rapid and drastic changes in
their production and employment structure;

Future of the CAP in the enlarged EU

30.
Points out that the present CAP is unsuitable to manage a substantial part of agricultural and agri-
culture-related problems in the enlarged EU; considers that the decoupling of the direct payments, forced by
the World Trade Organisation (WTO), increases in general the market orientation of European agriculture
but that decoupled direct payments do not contribute fully to the establishment of a sustainable agricultural
sector and rural society, either in the new Member States or in a considerable part of the EU-15; points out
that either additional measures or tailor-made application of the direct payments are necessary;

Takes the view that, especially in Member States and regions where specialised farms play a decisive
31.
role in the agriculture, the present system of direct payments promotes arable cropping too significantly,
does not assist properly the establishment of sustainable animal husbandry and does not promote and
facilitate the necessary structural changes;

32.
Notes that, in the case of some new Member States, in some sectors, the allocated quota levels led to
the freezing or even decline of agricultural production, and that the fact that decoupled payments were
linked to the lower level of quotas constituted a further subsidies disadvantage for the new Member States,
in addition to the phasing-in; also notes that the problem occurs also in some of the old Member States;

33.
Believes that the achievement of the CAP objectives is also hindered in the new Member States by the
insufficient level of rural development financing, by the lack of an efficient risk and crisis management
system and by excessively strict Community rules on state aid;

34.
Stresses that the CAP must be kept on the Community level in the framework of a reformed CAP
and any renationalisation of the CAP should be avoided; stresses, however, that specific measures based on
the principle of subsidiarity have to be applied; takes the view that it is necessary to revise the scope,
objectives, goals, and principles of the CAP, including the European agricultural model, taking into consid-
eration the objectives and needs of agriculture, rural areas, farmers, consumers and the entire society in the
enlarged EU of 27 countries in order to determine the necessary financial resources and ensure their proper,
equitable and fully justified allocation;

C 27 E/246

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

31.1.2008

Thursday 29 March 2007

35.
Emphasises that all possible factors (e.g. consequences of earlier financial decisions, CAP reforms,
experiences of the new Member States, the diversity and variety of European agriculture) have to be duly
taken into consideration in the future reform of the CAP, particularly during the CAP ‘health check’ and the
mid-term review of the 2007-2013 financial framework in 2008-2009;

Stresses further that it is imperative to avoid decisions forced only by attempts to reduce the level of

36.
Community funding or maintain the financial status quo among Member States;

37.
Considers that biomass and bioenergy production will play a strategic role in the future of the
agricultural sector in the EU; calls in this respect for appropriate EU funding to promote the production
of biomass on land no longer required for growing food and feed; recalls in this respect the high capacities
of the new Member States, and the increased overall production potential of the enlarged EU;

38.
Underlines that fulfilment of the specific needs of the Member States and regions, including problems
and difficulties in the new Member States, should be maintained on the basis of subsidiarity with the
following, tailor-made instruments:

(a)

introduction of a revised system of direct payments, including the introduction of new measures such
as voluntary recoupling options, to be used only by those Member States which consider this necessary
to meet social, employment and sustainability objectives; extension of the payments to new sectors and
new beneficiaries (for example soft fruits destined for processing), within the revised system of national
financial envelopes and full Community financing,

(b)

introduction of additional, optional, regional or temporary market measures with Community finan-
cing,

(c)

application of the national envelope system from the EU budget in the sectors to be reformed (wine,
fruit and vegetables),

(d)

improved support to producer organisations, strong encouragement for them and repeal of national
legislation which hampers them,

(e) promoting cross-border cooperation between producer organisations,

(f)

introduction of an efficient agricultural crisis and risk management system with Community financial
assistance, paid from the national envelopes,

(g)

strengthening the internal market with common quality standards, marketing, competition, food safety,
environmental and animal welfare rules,

(h)

reinforcement of the rural development system and its funding,

(i)

increase of the flexibility of the state aid rules (e.g. widening the scope of block exemptions and
increase of the ‘de minimis’ level);

39.
Considers that WTO compatibility has to be ensured during the Doha Round negotiations as part of
the EU offer on reducing trade barriers or in exchange for agreeing with the maintenance of internal sup-
port levels of the other WTO members;

Stresses that additional customs duties imposed under the special safeguard clause (SSG) could be a
40.
useful means of protecting sensitive sectors of the Community market, including those in the new Member
States, from surplus imports or from imports at excessively low prices; calls on the Commission to negoti-
ate in the current WTO round the possibility of making appropriate changes to the scope of the SSG in the
EU's list of concessions; points out that some of the new Member States had the opportunity to apply the
SSG in sensitive agricultural sectors not on the EU's current list of concessions;

31.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27 E/247

Thursday 29 March 2007

41.
Expects that the future CAP will not only take into consideration the needs of the enlarged EU but
that it will also become easier to manage, that it will reduce the administrative burden of farmers and
national authorities and will support the market-oriented, environmentally sound production of safe pro-
ducts, while ensuring the future of sustainable agriculture;

42.
Invites the Commission, the Member States and all stakeholders to conduct a lively discussion and
submit forward-looking proposals in order to build a sustainable future of the agriculture in the enlarged
EU;

43. Welcomes the Commission's intention to draw up a long-term vision of the future of the CAP after
2013 that: would allow it to benefit from the exceptional opportunity for expansion presented by the
forecast that growth in global agri-food trade will be twice as fast as total expected growth in world trade
over the coming three decades; would seek to ensure that agriculture development is uniform throughout
the EU; and, through the combined efforts of the EU-15 and the new Member States, would enable agri-
culture to fulfil its role in terms of production and other activities;

*

*

*

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, and to the parlia-

44.
ments and governments of the Member States.

P6_TA(2007)0102

Hepatitis C

Declaration of the European Parliament on hepatitis C

The European Parliament,

— having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas 12 million persons in Europe are infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV),

B. whereas HCV is an urgent issue, being a disease which attacks the liver and leads to chronic hepatitis C

causing cirrhosis, liver failure or liver cancer, thus increasing the need for transplantation,

C. whereas as a ‘silent killer’ and ‘sniper’ disease, HCV is often not detected so that many patients remain

undiagnosed while the diagnosed patients frequently suffer from stigmatisation,

1.

C.alls on the Commission and Council to:

— recognise hepatitis C as an urgent public health issue and identify priority actions in programmes of

future Council presidencies;

— adopt a Council recommendation on hepatitis C screening, ensuring early diagnosis and wider access to

treatment and care;

— respond to the recommendations of its resolution of 6 July 2006 on protecting European healthcare

workers from blood-borne infections due to needlestick injuries (1);

— facilitate further research on treatment for hepatitis C patients co-infected with HIV and/or hepatitis B

under the 7th Research Framework Programme;

Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the

2.
Council and the Commission.

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0305.