Outlook opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The Common Agricultural Policy Health Check
Date: 2008-02-07
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: agricultural production policy, aid system, common agricultural policy, regional farm policy, rural development, self-sufficiency in food

25.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/25

Outlook opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The Common Agricultural Policy Health
Check’

(2008/C 105/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 105/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.4.2008

Rapporteur: Mr Seamus MURRAY — Member of Meath County Council and the Mid-East Regional

Authority (IE/UEN-AE)

Policy recommendations

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY HEALTH CHECK

THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS

The Common Agricultural Policy today

General comments

considers that

1.
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
must continue to strive to achieve its objectives of providing EU
citizens with quality food at fair prices, providing farmers with a
living, preserving our rural heritage and
good standard of
protecting the rural environment and has evolved to meet chal-
lenges and changing needs; whilst at the same time establishing
conditions of fair competition enabling European agriculture to
maintain its presence on the world market, with due respect for
the concept of Community preference;

states that

2.
the CAP is in line with the Lisbon and
Göteborg objectives which seek to make Europe more competi-
tive; in this context, points out that the CAP must continue to
form the basis of public measures for the economic, social and
environmental defence of a key European sector, acceptable
both within the EU and outside its borders;

3.
believes that the CAP makes a significant contribution to
territorial cohesion and that any proposals for change as a result
of the Health Check must have sufficient regard to the various
regional specificities and production systems that exist within
the European Union;

4.
feels that the CAP, with a tailored second pillar, must
result in rural development geared to the new farming condi-
tions, as well as to more comprehensive rural development
covering all rural areas in the EU, in particular the most vulner-
able areas such as those with natural handicaps (upland, island
and outermost areas), and integrating them into the EU's
major geographical groupings,
for example the Nordic and
Mediterranean areas;

5.
sees farming and agriculture as the mainstay of many rural
communities and given that the EU has a different production
model compared to other major food-producing and exporting
countries, considers that
income support policies should be
targeted primarily to help sustain the viability of practising and
family-farming units, since it is they who are basically upholding
the EU's multifunctional agricultural model;

6.
will work to ensure that the necessary review of the CAP
does not result in any gradual dismantling and renationalisation
of that policy, but makes it possible to maintain sustainable
agriculture and food autonomy in conformity with food safety
health standards in Europe; underscores the challenges involved
in this common policy for all the Union's regions and for its
citizens as a whole;

notes,

8.
like the Commission, that the CAP has changed
during the last 15 years, particularly since the radical 2003
reform when arrangements were made to undertake a Health
Check to review the most recent changes and to consider new
challenges, risks and opportunities; points out that it is taking
place in a new global and European context of trade in food
products;

that

emphasises

sustainability,

9.
the multifunctional EU agriculture
model must contribute to combat climate change, embody the
food
concepts of
self-sufficiency, responsiveness to society, consumers and the
public good where good farming practices, environmental
protection and animal welfare are integral, and considers that
the CAP Health Check should serve to effectively uphold the
EU's multifunctional model of agriculture;

competitiveness, diversity,

10.
emphasises the importance of the indigenous European
agri-food industry and the critical significance of food safety
and food security where the EU is now the biggest agricultural
importer in the world;

considers that an evaluation of the effects of recent CAP
11.
reforms, particularly on numbers employed in farming and food
processing, food quality, availability, price and the levels of food
imports, as well as environmental and animal welfare impacts
would better assist in the appraisal of reforms and is disap-
pointed that this was not available at the outset of the Health
Check, furthermore, calls for such analyses and reviews to be
made available on a regional basis prior to the adoption on any
legislative changes;

12.
endorses nevertheless, the general thrust of the Health
Check to correct anomalies in the implementation of recent
reforms and hopes that it will be implemented in a way that
makes it possible to plan for the long-term, to allow authorities,
the agri-food industry and farmers to fully implement agreed
changes and to adapt to market needs;

In a

recent

considers that there is a massive gap between common
13.
perceptions of the CAP and the reality, a gap that needs to be
overcome by policymakers.
Eurobarometer
survey (1), 88 % of respondents believe farming and rural areas
are either important or very important to Europe's future. At
the same time almost 90 % of respondents had little or no
knowledge of the CAP (54 % never having heard of it and 34 %
not knowing what it is); therefore believes that there is a need
for a greater evaluation and dissemination of information of the
aims and achievements of the CAP;

7.
welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the CAP
Health Check and seeks to be consulted on the Commission's
legislative proposals as the debate progresses;

(1) Special Eurobarometer 276: Europeans, Agriculture and the Common

Agricultural Policy: March 2007.

25.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/27

14.
welcomes initiatives to streamline and simplify the imple-
mentation of the CAP but emphasises that such initiatives must
be developed, at all times, with all end-users in mind;

implemented without delay, for the less relevant legal parts of
Annexes III and IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 to be
removed, and for
to be
restricted to those legal areas directly concerning recipients of
direct payments;

the cross-compliance regulations

Taking Stock of the Implementation and Simplifying the
Single Payment Scheme (SPS)

would particularly welcome greater cooperation and
21.
coordination between farm inspection agencies given the
increasing number and range of inspections;

Simplifying the SPS

15.
supports all reasonable moves to further simplify the
SPS, as unnecessarily rigid, complex rules and bureaucratic
procedures are a considerable burden and cost, however,
changes to the SPS should not be based solely on the require-
ment to simplify, but should meet the need to strengthen and
defend the EU's multifunctional model;

16.
supports the proposal that Member States should have
the opportunity to adjust from a historical basis for SPS towards
a ‘flatter’ rate as 2013 approaches, where considered necessary,
but believes that this will require flexibility in the detailed imple-
mentation of the ‘flatter’ rate in the Member States and regions.
This flexibility should also allow for the impact that full decou-
pling may have on certain sectors and regions, and the possibi-
lity of graduated payments in favour of the more multifunc-
farms and farms that are less well rewarded by the
tional
market. Impact analysis is also desirable in the Member States
on the effect of this major potential change in terms of its likely
effects on land-use, farm structure, farm ownership and succes-
sion, enterprise mix, regional balance and overall farming effi-
ciency and competitiveness;

17.
is of the view that in relation to the ‘new’ Member States,
further analysis is required of the consequences of movement
away from SAPS;

Cross-compliance

18.
acknowledges the necessity for cross-compliance with EU
environment, public, animal and plant health and animal
welfare standards and urges that work continue to simplify
unduly complicated laws or rules, whether introduced by the
Commission or in the Member States;

19.
considers, however, that a review of the requirements on
keeping land in good environmental condition must not be
allowed to undermine or water down environmental require-
ments which must be kept under review as regulations (such as
pesticides) are amended;

Partially Coupled Support (PCS)

22.
considers that in general PCS is seen as a transitional
measure towards a general move to full decoupling. However in
a regional context, where levels of production are small, where
the region itself is economically vulnerable, or where the social
and environmental benefits of partial decoupling are apparent, a
PCS measure can have a continuing role for a number of years;
thus supports the proposal that PCS be permitted to continue
under these terms to retain an element of regional self-suffi-
ciency and to help ensure balanced regional development;

Upper and Lower Limits in Support Levels

findings, an upper payment

considers that with transparency in SPS payments and
23.
recent Court of Auditors'
limit
would be publicly very acceptable and politically appealing.
Ideally however,
impact assessments should be advanced to
support proposed changes; and accepts that some limitation to
the upper level of payments could be implemented, for example
by a scaled reduction combined with a ceiling;

a minimum level of payment is proposed to allay the
24.
than the
position where the administrative cost
payment made;
its
wording would not in practice represent a new obstacle to the
viability of family-run farms and would welcome the potential
saving in administrative costs;

this proposal, provided that

is greater

supports

25.
cautions that ‘genuine’ farmers may not be so easily clas-
sified as such by the size of their landholding, for instance,
certain crops and enterprises can be very labour intensive while
other landowners with large estates could struggle to be identi-
fied as ‘real farmers’; considers that the viability of practising
farmers, particularly those smaller family-farm units should be
prioritised with regard to support payments;

underlines that proportionality, transparency and coher-
20.
ency should be the bywords for cross-compliance regulations to
improve their accessibility and observation; calls for the simplifi-
cation measures that have been initiated and decided on to be

26.
proposes, at the same time, that major farm enterprises
should not be regarded independently from their legal form,
development and structure, as an overall gradual degression
could in certain cases destroy competitive units and lead to
substantial job reductions;

C 105/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.4.2008

Improving Market Orientation and Grasping New Opportu-
nities

The Role of Market Intervention and Supply Controls

instruments to one more reflective of

27.
considers that the global agri-food sector is moving from
an era of subsidised surplus disposal and price support with
volume control
the
market. This is led by significant longer term structural changes,
such as sustained food demand growth, especially in Asia and
the effect of biofuel policies. Short term factors such as drought
and disease outbreaks as well as currency fluctuations are also
relevant to temporary price changes. The much-changed interna-
tional market scenario is particularly true for milk, dairy
products and cereals;

28.
believes that while the current CAP market-related policy
instruments are becoming less necessary with stronger interna-
tional food markets, such markets can be extremely volatile.
Thus for market stability, market protection for sudden, sharp
price changes are required and therefore supports the necessity
for the retention of market-related instruments such as a ‘safety
net’
in times of market weakness, without relinquishing all
supply controls;

that

proposes

the Commission continues

29.
to closely
analyse market prospects in all sectors and publish regular
reports on market developments to help ensure informed policy
decisions;

through to 2015 through the gradual expansion of quotas and
the reduction of the superlevy. The rate and timing of quota
expansion or superlevy reduction should be based on ongoing
analysis of market prospects by the Commission from
December 2007. Safeguard mechanisms should continue to be
provided in the event of an excessive drop in market prices. As
part of this process, special arrangements will be required to
sustain dairying in sensitive regions;

awaits the Commission review of the performance of the
‘smaller’ sectors (dried fodder,

for

34.
measures supply control
starch, flax and hemp);

Responding to New Challenges

Managing Risk

in a
acknowledges the potential of risk management
35.
rapidly changing global market and the possibility of enhancing
specific rural development measures to cope with increased risk;
the mechanisms proposed by the Commission may have a role
to play, but they cannot replace the functions performed by the
main market management
instruments which used to exist
under the CAP and which have been gradually dismantled in
recent years. Would encourage further research into and evalua-
tion of prospective applications;

Cereal Intervention

Climate Change, Bio-energy, Water Management and BIodiversity

is in favour of a full review of intervention rules for
intervention

30.
cereals and agrees with the Commission that
should be confined to bread wheat;

Set Aside

31.
supports the proposal to establish compulsory setaside at
zero but proposes that the regulatory possibility of compulsory
set-aside should be retained to accommodate future market
weaknesses; and, endorses additional measures for environ-
mental protection involving, for example, the maintenance of
permanent pastures and the protection of riparian strips;

Soft Landing for Dairy Quotas

32.
is of the view that in contrast to recent decades, global
dairy markets are now stronger and it could be expected that
this demand-led market growth will be sustained. There is also
considerable uncertainty, however, concerning the price of dairy
products in this global market. In this context, a debate should
be held on the Common Organisation of the Market in milk
and dairy products, with the aim of defining new mechanisms
to regulate this sector.;

33.
believes that there is a need to provide for a soft landing
for the quota regime to facilitate its expiry in March 2015 and
supports the gradual phasing out of the milk quota regime

36.
acknowledges the damage that intensive agriculture has
caused for example to soil structure, bio-diversity and pollution
of water courses, but nevertheless emphasises the role that
farmers play as guardians of the countryside and the varied
traditional small-scale farming landscapes and welcomes the
Commission
has
contributed more than other sectors to curbing greenhouse gas
emissions while pointing out
that agriculture in many EU
regions is highly exposed to climate change;

acknowledgement

EU agriculture

that

37.
supports the call in the recent Green Paper on adaptation
to climate change for agriculture to contribute further to miti-
gating the effects of climate change. As climate changes, agri-
culture and forestry will be come increasingly important as
providers of environmental and ecosystem services. Future CAP
reviews could provide opportunities for including adjustment
measures in farm support programmes;

further

the vital

acknowledges

importance of measures

issues of sustainability. Notes that

to
38.
expand renewable
relevant
energies and supports
research and measures to extend the EU response to these vital
global
the cultivation of
energy crops supported by national and European measures and
instruments contributes substantially to achieving the energy
and climate policy goals of the Community and is an important
means of creating added value for agriculture and rural develop-
ment. Points out that the reduced payment for energy crops has
therefore become less relevant and this coupled measure can in
future be eliminated;

25.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/29

is

that

attempts

concerned however,

39.
the
‘rural development’ umbrella to incorporate an ever-growing
number of issues, where some could potentially be incongruous
forestry and biodiversity), could be problematic and in
(e.g.
any case would question whether a number of these challenges
would
development
programmes;

addressed

through

to use

rural

best

be

Strengthening the 2nd Pillar

acknowledges the importance of appropriate funding for
40.
rural development measures, but in line with subsidiarity — yet
while still recognising the Community nature of modulation —
believes that decisions on modulation are best taken at the
appropriate devolved level to better reflect the diversity of local
and regional needs. Member States and regions should have the
scope to direct funds to Pillar II measures based on actual needs;

is

furthermore,

concerned that

trend towards
41.
increased modulation is threatening the Community nature of
the CAP and undermining the principle of cohesion, given that
co-financing of Pillar II measures will be more difficult
for
poorer regions and Member States;

the

Financial Framework

notes that

42.
the available finance to 2013 is steadily
decreasing in constant price terms, however, higher market
prices in some sectors and greater efficiencies can lead to signifi-
cant savings; and supports the proposition that such savings
channelled into increased rural development
should be
measures, as for example research and innovation;

PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE OF THE CAP POST-2013

mental
resourced;

and energy policies must

also be

appropriately

46.
highlights that the ageing of the EU's population has a
significant impact on the agricultural sector and rural areas in
general and at the same time, recognises that R&D and innova-
tion are essential to the competitiveness of European agriculture;
urges that adequate education and training be made available,
particularly to encourage young entrants into farming;

believes that with limited resources, priority for income
47.
supports be focused on practicing,
family-farming units and
those farms which actively contribute to employment and main-
tenance of the rural population;

Ensuring Food Safety and Security

considers that while the agri-food sector has become
48.
market-oriented the secure supply of safe food produce for
consumers at reasonable prices is essential and believes that the
issue of long-term EU food security needs to be addressed;

49.
urges that uniform phytosanitary, veterinary and environ-
mental standards be applied to food products for consumption
in the EU whether EU-produced or from 3rd countries and
Food and
urges
Veterinary Office (FVO) and the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) be provided with the human and material resources
necessary for the performance of their task;

inspection authorities,

that border

the

50.
believes, where food is the EU's second biggest industry,
it is vital to maintain an efficient and competitive food sector.
Research must be adequately resourced to support product
development as well as education, training and advisory services
for new producers and young farmers;

43.
would like, in the context of the consultation process on
the reform of the EU budget, to set out a number of policy
priorities which should be fully considered in any discussions
on the future role and functioning of the CAP;

51.
considers that in order to minimise food transport and
the carbon footprint there should be an emphasis on promoting
EU produce and informing consumers, particularly children
about the benefits of eating healthy and locally-produced food;

New Challenges and Emerging Needs

Regional Specificities

is of

44.
the view that while the CAP has successfully
adapted to different challenges since its inception, considers that
the Commission and its agents must do more to better inform
and engage with citizens about the purpose, achievements and
priorities of the CAP and that this should be a future communi-
cation priority of the Commission;

45.
considers that as new challenges emerge such as the
impact on agriculture and food policies of energy and climate
change policies, ongoing EU expansion,
trade
issues etc.; a range of expectations seek that the CAP's multi-
functional nature be expanded to incorporate further roles;
believes that an adequately resourced CAP for land use, food
and farming must remain central to the EU project. Environ-

international

52.
believes that the CAP must have sufficient regard to the
regional specificities that exist within the European Union and
must protect and promote the diversity of agricultural activities
and production systems to a greater extent, including those that
are organic and GMO-free, and better responds to regional
the Mediterranean, Nordic
characteristics (such as those of
regions mountainous and outermost regions of the EU);

53.
urges that regions must be able to retain an element of
food self-sufficiency including those where cultivation and stock
farming conditions are difficult and highlights the direct link
between high quality locally-produced food and regional identity
which the CAP must safeguard;

C 105/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.4.2008

Consistency with other Policy Sectors

is

increasingly concerned about

54.
environmental and
energy issues generally and global warming in particular and
views land use policy as critically important. Agriculture must
innovate in order to adapt to the effects of and combat climate
change;

believes the CAP should be better connected with other
55.
relevant policies such as EU energy policy, regional policy, envir-
onmental policies and R&D policies and urges for a better coor-
dination of these policy areas at all levels of government;

56.
also believes that the CAP has both an internal and
external dimension and is of the view that a future CAP must
consider the role of the EU in the wider developing world by
providing markets where feasible and should encourage food
self-sufficiency in developing countries through technological
and skills transfer; it is vital that the impact that the CAP has on
developing countries is continually assessed;

The Nature of Rural Development

57.
believes that an assessment of the rural impacts of EU
decisions could offer a dimension to EU decision-making which
would make it possible to take the specific characteristics of
rural areas into consideration both in the planning of decisions
and in monitoring their implementation. When assessing rural
impacts it must be taken into account that rural areas vary in

Brussels, 7 February 2008.

different parts of Europe and that they may also vary consider-
ably within individual Member States, depending on where they
are located;

58.
considers that the scope of ‘rural development’ and what
can be encompassed under the 2nd pillar will need clearer defi-
nition and allied to this also considers that a future CAP can be
better used to build alliances and support policy coordination
between rural and urban areas, particularly in peri-urban areas
where there can be intensive pressures on rural resources;
furthermore rural development policies should encourage and
protect farming in areas where it may bring particular benefits
such as in and around urban areas and in sparsely populated
regions;

59.
would encourage the sustainable development of rural
areas for communities, based on an approach of integrated rural
development, through the provision of essential services, such as
education, health and postal services, and infrastructure, such as
broadband and public transport;

60.
believes that for more responsive decisions, particularly
in relation to wider ‘rural development’ issues, there must be
the local and
more scope for and greater involvement of
regional
in the policy-making and decision-making
processes;

level

refers,

in this context,

61.
to its Declaration on Rural
Development and the Lisbon Strategy (2) as a valuable contribu-
tion to a reflection on the future of the CAP and rural develop-
ment;

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE

(2) Alexandroupolis Declaration on Rural Development and the Lisbon

Strategy, Greece (June 2006) (CdR 209/2006).