Y Pwyllgor Amgylchedd a
Chynaliadwyedd
Environment and Sustainability
Committee
24 July 2012
Dear Colleague
Common Agricultural
Policy
As you will be aware the Environment and
Sustainability’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Task and
Finish Group (the Task and Finish Group) published its initial
views and suggestions for amendments to the European
Commission’s (the Commission’s proposals) for reform of
the CAP in January 2012.
Since January, the Task and Finish Group has continued to monitor
developments within the negotiation process and has met with
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), Commission officials and
representatives of other Member States and regions to set out the
views of Welsh stakeholders on the proposed reforms. The Group
wants to ensure that this level of engagement continues throughout
the negotiation process so as to secure the best possible outcomes
for Wales. In particular, the Group is keen to ensure that it
maintains a dialogue with colleagues in the European Parliament who
will have equal say to Member States on the final content of the
proposals.
In May 2012 the relevant Rapporteurs from the European
Parliament’s Agriculture Committee published draft reports on
the Commission’s proposals for:
-
A new regulation on direct payments;
-
A new regulation on the rural development fund;
-
A new regulation on the Common Market for agriculture; and
-
A new horizontal regulation which sets out control mechanisms for
the other three regulations.
The Draft Reports make proposals for significant amendments to the
Commission’s original draft regulations. The Agriculture
Committee will now go through a process of agreeing this report
before it adopts its final position. The Agriculture Committee has
stated that it will not vote on its final position on these
regulations until a decision has been reach on the EU Budget and
therefore the amount allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy.
The Task and Finish Group would like to hear your views on some of
the key amendments proposed in the Draft Reports so that it can
raise any relevant issues with the MEPs before they adopt their
final position.
To that end, we have provided below a summary of what we believe
are some of the key amendments from the Draft Reports that may have
impacts for Wales and the Group’s initial response to them.
We would welcome any feedback from you/your members on this
summary. We have set out some broad questions for thought, but you
need not reply to all of these directly if you do not wish to and
comments on any of the other amendments made in the Draft Report
would also be welcomed.
You can send us your thoughts in writing or via an email to
es.comm@wales.gov.uk
Once we have collected everyone’s views we will publish a
summary of the key points raised on our website.
If you would like to read the complete version of the Draft Reports
you can access them from the European Parliament’s website
here. In addition you can track the progress of the proposals
through the EU decision-making process on the European
Parliament’s ‘Legislative Observatory’ web-site
here.
Yours sincerely
Vaughan Gething
AM
Chair – Common Agricultural Policy Task
and Finish Group
Draft Report on a regulation
establishing rules for direct payments
The Draft Report on the direct payments regulation was published on
30 May 2012 by the appointed rapporteur, Mr Luis Manuel Capoulas
Santos. The Draft Report proposes 107 amendments to the
Commission’s original proposal. Some of these amendments are
supportive of those proposed by the Task and Finish Group in its
initial response and we believe that these could deliver better
outcomes for Wales. Some amendments however propose changes that
the Task and Finish Group did not support or did not considered in
its initial review but may have implications for Wales.
Distribution of direct payments
In its initial conclusions on the draft direct payments regulation
published by the Commission the Task and Finish Group expressed
concern about the proposal to require all Member States to pay 40
per cent of their direct payments on an area basis in 2014 and to
move towards a full area based mechanism for direct payments by
2019. The Task and Finish Group believed that this could lead to
significant redistribution of payments within Wales and that the
draft regulation should be amended to include a more gradual
transition period.
In his draft report (Amendment 53) Mr Capoulas Santos
suggests that Member States should only be required to redistribute
20 per cent of payments on an area basis in 2014 and that in 2019
(Amendment 55) Member States would have leeway to allow up
to a 20 per cent difference to average unit payments within their
territory. Whilst these amendments give Member States a greater
degree of flexibility they do not go as far as the Task and Finish
Group’s recommended changes. The Task and Finish Group is
therefore minded to continue to call for greater flexibility for
Member States.
Amendment 56 of the Draft Report suggests that in moving
towards an area based system of direct payments Member States could
take measures to ensure that in 2019 no farm’s entitlements
are reduced by more than 30 per cent as compared to 2014. Given
that the Task and Finish Group was concerned about the instability
that could be caused by a large redistribution of payments in Wales
we are minded to support this amendment.
-
Would you support the amendments as set out in the draft report or
would you like to see further changes put forward?
Entitlements
The Task and Finish Group heard a range of concerns from
stakeholders about the proposal to allocate entitlements in May
2014 to farmers who activated at least one entitlement in 2011.
Amendments 50 and 51 of the Draft Report suggest that this
should be widened to include farmers who activated entitlement
between 2009 and 2011 to avoid excluding farmers who may due to
particular circumstances have been unable to claim their
entitlement in 2011.
One particular concern that the Task and Finish Group had about the
2011 reference period was that it might prevent new entrants from
joining the industry. Amendment 59 of the Draft
Report states that Member States should be allowed to use the
national reserve proposed under Article 23 to allocate entitlements
to farmers who began their agricultural activity after 2011 and who
operate in sectors identified by the Member State.
The Task and
Finish Group also heard concerns from stakeholders that the future
reference date of 2014 for the distribution of entitlements may
lead to land banking. We are therefore minded to continue to pursue
amendments to the text of the proposed regulations that would
safeguard against this.
-
Would you support Amendments 50 and 51 on widening the years within
which a farmer is required to have activated an entitlement?
-
Would you support the use of the national reserve for the purpose
outlined by Amendment 59?
-
Do you support the view that further safeguards are needed in the
text to minimise the possibility of land banking?
Greening
The Task and Finish Group had serious concerns about the proposals
for greening direct payments set out by the Commission in the
original text of the draft regulation. It therefore suggested a
number of amendments to this element. These included allowing
farmers in agri-environment schemes certified by the Commission to
automatically receive the greening payments and giving Member
States and Regions greater flexibility to select greening
requirements from a wider menu of greening options.
Amendment 69 of the Draft Report suggests that where farmers
in existing agri-environment scheme are undertaking measures which
go beyond the greening requirements they should automatically
receive the greening payments. Amendment 72 allows the
Commission to adopted delegated acts to further define the
conditions in which organic farmers and those in agri-environment
schemes can automatically qualify for payments.
While the Draft Report suggests a number of amendments to the three
greening requirements proposed by the Commission on crop rotation,
permanent pasture and ecological focus areas, which improve these
three options, it does not propose to give Member States the
flexibility the Task and Finish Group believes is necessary to
avoid perverse consequences. The Task and Finish Group
therefore believes that it is important to seek further amendments
which better reflect its initial conclusions.
-
Do you support the proposal set out by amendment 69?
-
Do you support the Group’s view that it should continue to
push for a wider menu of greening options to be contained in the
final regulation?
Small Farmers
Scheme
The Task and Finish Group concluded that the Small Farmers Scheme
proposed in the draft regulation should be voluntary and should be
subject to cross compliance. The Task and Finish Group therefore
welcome Amendments 18 and 102 in the draft report that would
make the Scheme voluntary. Amendment 104 however, increases
the amounts of funding that farmers could receive under the Small
Farmers Scheme from 1000 to 1500 Euros. The Task and Finish Group
is yet to form a view on this amendment and would therefore like to
hear your thoughts on this issue.
-
Would you support an amendment to make the Small Farmers Scheme
Voluntary?
-
What are your views on Amendment 104?
Young
Farmers
The Task and Finish Group was extremely supportive of the proposals
to encourage new entrants into the industry but believed that this
support should not be limited to people under the age of 40. No
mention is made in the Draft Report of widening support to new
entrants above 40 but Amendments 86 and 87 recommend that
Member States should be required to develop objective and
non-discriminatory criteria to set out who under the age of 40 will
be eligible for funding. The justification for this amendment
provided in the Draft Report is that Member States should require
young farmer to have developed the relevant training and skills to
ensure their business are viable in the long term. The Task and
Finish Group is minded to continue to pursue an amendment that
would provide support to all new entrants and wishes to seek your
views on Amendments 86 and 87.
-
Do you support the Group’s view that support should be
provided to all new entrants and not only those under the age of
40?
-
Do you support the intentions of Amendments 86 and 87?
Active
Farmer
Whilst the Task and Finish Group supported strongly the principal
that direct payments should only be made to active farmers it was
concerned that the proposal set out by the Commission which would
define an active farmer on the basis of agricultural income would
be overly complex. It therefore welcomes Amendment 29 which
removes this requirement and Amendment 32 which would
introduce a negative list of activities and businesses such as
sport grounds and transport companies who would not be eligible to
receive direct payments.
-
Would you support the use of a negative list to define Active
Farmer?
Amendment 31 would also amend the
definition of Active Farmer under Article 9 so that natural or
legal persons who ‘were not engaged in an agricultural
production activity in 2011’ could not receive single farm
payment. The amendment does not clarify how this would be defined
in relation to new entrants.
-
What are your views on this Amendment and do you have any concerns
about how it would relate to new entrants?
Flexibility between
Pillars
The Task and Finish Group heard a range of
views from stakeholders about the ability of Member States to
transfer funds between Pillars. The Group concluded that it will be
important to ensure that this remain a voluntary option for Member
States and regions. The Draft Report makes a number of amendments
in relation to this issue. Amendment 39 would allow several
Member States including the UK to increase the amount they are able
to transfer from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 by an additional 10 per cent.
Amendment 40 would enable Member States who
don’t use Pillar 1 funds to support Areas of Natural
Constraint to transfer up to five per cent of these funds to Pillar
II and Amendment 43 would allow Member States to transfer
any unallocated funds for greening to agri-environment-climate
measures under Pillar 2. Amendment 41 however would mean
that in transferring a combination of these funds Member States
could not transfer more than 20 per cent in total from Pillar 1 to
Pillar 2.
-
What are your views on the proposal to allow the UK to transfer an
additional 10 per cent from Pillar to Pillar 2?
-
What are your views on the proposals to allow Member States to
transfer some funds not used for areas of natural constraints and
greening under Pillar 1 to Pillar 2?
Draft Regulation on Rural
Development
The Draft Report prepared by the rapporteur Mr Capoulas Santos,
sets out 72 proposed amendments to the original text of the draft
regulation. The Task and Finish Group broadly welcomed the
Commission’s draft regulation on rural development and did
not suggest many detailed amendments in its initial conclusions.
Nevertheless the Draft Report makes a number of amendments which
may have impacts on Wales and the Task and Finish Group and is
therefore keen to hear stakeholder views on the possible
changes.
Objectives and Priorities of Rural Development
Amendment 9 of the Draft Report on the rural development
regulation would add the competitiveness of forestry as an
objective and Amendment 10 would add the competitiveness of
forestry as a union priority for rural development.
-
Would you support the addition of the competitiveness
of forestry as an objective and priority for rural development
funds?
Specific
Measures
The Draft Report also proposes amendments to a number of the
measures that Member States will be able to use in their rural
development programmes. The Task and Finish Group would
particularly welcome your views on:
-
Amendments 24 and 27 which would enable Member States to
make retirement payments to any farmers permanently transferring
their holding to another farmer if the farmer retiring is over the
age 65 and has practised farming for at least ten years; and
-
Amendment 28 which would allow Member States to provide
funds to act as guarantees for land lease contracts for young
farmers to facilitate access for young farmers to long term
leases.
Agri-environment
Climate
Amendments 41 and 42 of the Draft Report seek to ensure that
in the event of an amendment to Pillar 1 which would enable farmers
in existing agri-environment schemes to automatically receive
greening payments there would be no double funding between the
pillars. The amendments would require all agri-environment schemes
to go beyond the minimum greening requirements. The Task and Finish
Group sees these as logical amendments given its position on the
greening of direct payments and is therefore minded to support
them.
-
What are your views on these proposed amendments?
Amendment 66 of the Draft Report would allow for
co-financing rates of 60 per cent for all agri-environment-climate
measures and 90 per cent co-financing rate in the programmes of
less developed regions. The Draft Report states that many Member
States make use of the increased co-financing rates for existing
agri-environment schemes and that this should continue in future.
Amendment 68 of the Draft Report would require
Member States to spend at least 30 per cent of their rural
development funds on agri-environment-climate schemes.
-
Would you support the inclusion of increased co-financing rates for
agri-environment climate measures?
-
Would you support the requirement that Member States should spend
at least 30 per cent of their rural development funds on
agri-environment-climate measures?
Areas of Natural
Constraint
As currently drafted the rural development regulation in Annex 2
sets out proposals for biophysical criteria that should be used to
define areas of natural constraint. Amendment 46 of
the Draft Report suggests that the criteria listed in Annex 2
should only be indicative at this point and that the Commission
should, by 31 December 2015, present a legislative proposal for
mandatory criteria to define areas of natural constraint. The Draft
Report states that this would allow the Commission more time to
complete a full impact assessment on the criteria.
-
What is your view of this suggested Amendment?
Draft Regulation on financing,
management and monitoring of the Common Agricultural
Policy
The Draft Regulation sets out the control and management
requirements that will apply to the distribution of CAP funds
including measures in relation to cross-compliance. The Draft
Report on this regulation was prepared by the rapporteur Mr
Giovanni La Via, suggests 102 amendments to the original text.
Although the Task and Finish Group did not put forward detailed
amendments on this regulation it did support stakeholder’s
calls for further simplification of the penalty and compliance
system.
Amendment 58 in the Draft Report on this regulation would
require Member States to ensure that any management or control
systems established are ‘proportionate and
risk-based’. Amendment 62 would require Member States to
focus their on-the-spot checks in areas where risk or error is
highest, to ensure that checks are proportionate to the sums of
money involved and consider the outcome of earlier audits.
Amendments 85 and 94 would require that cross-compliance
penalties were applied only where the issue of non-compliance was
unequivocally attributed to the beneficiary concerned and
Amendment 86 would allow Member States to establish a
warning system where the beneficiaries concerned could receive and
initial warning letter allowing them to remedy the irregularity in
cases of first non-compliance.
-
What are your views on these amendments?
-
Are there any other amendments that you would like to see?
Electronic Identification of Animals
Amendment 87 of the draft regulation
would prevent beneficiaries from being penalised in relation to
Statutory Management Requirement 7 on the identification of bovine
animals and Statutory Management Requirement 8 on the
identification of ovine and caprine animals where the failure to
comply is as a result of a technical faults with the identification
and registration system.
-
Would you support such an amendment to the draft regulation?
Water Framework Directive and Pesticides
Directive
Article 91 of the draft regulation put
forward by the Commission would allow for compliance with the
requirements of the Pesticides Directive and Water Framework
Directive to become cross compliance requirements once all Member
States have adopted the Directives. Amendment 88 and 89 of
the Draft Requirement would remove this part of Article 91.
-
What are your views on these Amendments?
Good Agricultural and Environmental
Condition
Amendment 102 of the draft regulation
would amend Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) 8
on maintaining landscape to remove the reference made in the
Commission’s proposals to measures for avoiding invasive
alien species and pests. The draft report states that while
preventing invasive alien species should be eligible for support
under the rural development measures the well planned and
multi-annual approach that is required to address these species
would be very costly to individual farmers.
-
Do you agree with the amendment proposed to GAEC 8?