B Explanatory
memorandum by Mr Korkeaoja, rapporteur
1 Section
A: The European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy: A road map for
the sustainability of European fisheries
1.1 Introduction
1. Fish is an important and healthy food resource for
the European population. Fishing in European waters has been and
still is a fundamental basis for the livelihood of many Europeans.
Following decades of overfishing and declining fish stocks the continent
is, however, losing its fish production potential and increasing
its dependence on imports of fishery products.
2. In many Council of Europe member states, fisheries is an important
economic activity in addition to its social and traditional value
to local coastal communities. The reality of fisheries – particularly
in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea – is unfortunately generally
characterised by overfishing, fleet overcapacity and low economic
profitability. There are nevertheless cases of fisheries which are
managed sustainably that can serve as examples of good governance.
Some areas of the Mediterranean, for example, feature predominantly
small-scale coastal fisheries based on small traditional family-run
fleets.
3. In order to better respond to these different realities across
the enlarged European Union and to anchor more firmly the principles
of sustainable fishing practice, the European Union has launched
a reform process for its Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The next
reform cycle of the CFP is foreseen for 2012. This process provides
an excellent opportunity to debate fishery policies at pan-European
level.
4. In April 2009, the European Commission presented a Green Paper
on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Note The Green
Paper outlines a vision for European fisheries by 2020. According
to this vision, fish stocks have recovered and fisheries are sustainable
and attractive. Furthermore, the European Commission identifies
five structural failings of the current CFP:
- a deep-rooted problem of fleet overcapacity;
- imprecise policy objectives resulting in insufficient
guidance for decisions and implementation;
- a decision-making system that encourages a short-term
focus;
- a framework that does not give sufficient responsibility
to the industry;
- a lack of political will to ensure compliance, and poor
compliance by the industry.
5. The above analysis refers primarily to the situation in the
member states of the European Union, but the same problems and structural
failings on a general level also apply to Council of Europe member
states.
6. In the course of 2010, the European Commission held a wide
public consultation and published the main findings in the Commission
Staff Working Document SEC(2010)428.
7. It is the general consensus among stakeholders that the issue
of sustainable fisheries in the European seas, such as the North
Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Irish Sea, the North
Sea and the Mediterranean and other maritime areas bordering Europe,
needs to be tackled and measures taken to ensure healthy marine
ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. However, the economic burden-sharing
of “setting things right” should take into account the principle
of past liability for overfishing and depletion of fishing stocks,
since not all member states bear the same level of responsibility.
1.2 Overview of some
fisheries in European waters and the North Atlantic
8. The natural conditions for fish production in European
waters are excellent. The European continental shelf is wide in
many places and many of the semi-enclosed seas provide for high
productivity. Although overfishing has reduced the size of most
commercial fish stocks, there are many stocks that still exhibit
high productivity. For instance the herring stock in the Gulf of
Bothnia in the northernmost part of the Baltic Sea is currently
exploited at the globally agreed target level of maximum sustainable
yield and the stock is characterised by large year classes and all
age groups.
9. Cod stocks hold the record of being able to reproduce at high
rates, but are also recognised as being vulnerable to excessive
fishing. The cod stock in the Baltic Sea showed a remarkable increase
in the 1980s followed by a long decreasing trend. The increase and
subsequent decrease were not only caused by overfishing, but also
by adverse environmental conditions. Management through a long-term
plan has now delivered results in the form of larger year classes
and an increasing stock. Similarly the cod stock in the North Sea
is the subject of a management plan, but the recovery aimed for
as a response to management measures has not yet materialised.
10. Over 54% of the Mediterranean fish stocks which have been
analysed by scientists are found to be overfished. To remedy this
situation, the European Union adopted in 2006 the "Mediterranean
Regulation",
Note which
aims to improve fisheries management in order to achieve sustainable
fisheries, protect the fragile marine environment and restore fish
stocks to healthy levels. It applies to European Union member states around
the Mediterranean. To allow member states time to prepare for the
implementation of this regulation, a long transition period of three
years was agreed for a number of its provisions. Since 1 June 2010,
the regulation is fully in force and must be implemented by the
member states concerned. However, so far those member states have
largely failed to take all the necessary measures to ensure full
implementation.
11. Some stocks are still on an alarmingly decreasing trend, such
as the extremely valuable and important stock of bluefin tuna. This
stock forms the backbone of many fisheries in the Mediterranean.
Although recent decisions have reduced the applicable quotas, the
stock is at a very worrying level and researchers have proposed
serious measures, such as a ban on exports of the species through
its inclusion on CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) lists. It is indeed in the interest
of all Europeans, and especially the stakeholders, to protect the
species and enable a recovery of the stock that can guarantee its
sustainable use by future generations. Despite the will shown by
some European states during the CITES conference recently held in
Doha (Qatar), the northern bluefin tuna has not been registered
as a species prohibited in international trade (Appendix 1 to the
CITES), or even strictly controlled (Appendix 2 to the CITES). The
debate on two threatened species of sharks – the porbeagle and the hammerhead
– also ended negatively.
12. Mediterranean fisheries cannot be managed by the Mediterranean
Regulation or by the European Union alone. The involvement of all
sea-facing countries is crucial and the European Union is very active
within multilateral organisations such as the General Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), so as to improve
scientific knowledge and create above all a level playing field
with the overarching aim of promoting sustainability.
13. Fisheries in Norway are on some essential issues regulated
differently from how they are regulated in the European Union. Norway
has prohibited discarding of fish and requires all fish to be landed.
It also operates a system of closures based on evidence of exploratory
fisheries. This allows for detection of aggregations of juvenile
fish or situations of unwanted catch composition where there is
reason for temporarily prohibiting fishing.
14. Fisheries management in the United States and Canada has as
its common feature a decentralised and regionalised approach. Decisions
are delegated to the regional level whereby top-down control and
micro-management by the central authorities is substantially reduced.
One assessment of the implementation of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries has
also ranked the United States as one of the best performers.
1.3 Best practices
for developing sustainable fisheries
15. Fortunately, there are many examples of best practices
that can be implemented to change the generally unsatisfactory state
of European fisheries. These practices also address the five structural
failings identified by the European Commission.
16. The management of fisheries in Europe would benefit from a
decentralisation that would reduce top-down controls in this large
continent with diverse fisheries conditions. Devolving management
to regional level would provide for decisions that target the situations
in each maritime region. It would similarly increase the possibilities
for co-management and incentives for compliance by the industry.
Some essential parts of the policy, such as the overarching objectives
and principles (setting of the primary objectives of management, rules
for capacity reduction, financing, etc.) would still be determined
centrally at the highest level.
17. Introducing a regional approach would enable the creation
of innovative solutions that would promote responsible behaviour
by fishermen, decrease bycatches and harmful ecosystem effects,
allow for better scientific information and advice, provide for
sustainability and ultimately enhance economic performance of the
industry. Certain smaller European Union member states and accession
countries would require special financial assistance to build capacity
– both at different levels of administration and among stakeholders
– in order to achieve those ambitious goals.
18. The following recommendations are based on best practices
as recorded and implemented in both Europe and other continents
and countries:
1.4 Recommendations
for achieving sustainability in European fisheries
19. It is important to strengthen the process of building
sustainable fisheries in Europe. Fisheries form an important element
of the European economy and identity and the future of the sector
has to be secured, both in economic and social terms. The primary
objective should be to attain ecological sustainability of marine
living resources. This would create the basis for maximising wealth
generated by the sector and long-term employment viability for local
communities.
20. Achieving sustainable fisheries at pan-European level inevitably
implies a reduction of fishing, both as catch levels and as fishing
effort deployed at sea. This will in the short term negatively affect
both employment within fisheries and the supply of fishery products.
Accepting this reality is a first and necessary step for the process
of building a sustainable future for the fisheries sector.
21. Reducing fishing may be achieved by the reduction of both
inputs and outputs. On the input side, the possibilities for concrete
measures are targeted reductions of overcapacity of fishing fleets,
where appropriate combined with reductions of fishing effort. The
output side involves establishing fishing opportunities based on the
state of the relevant fish stocks and the objectives for their recovery
and development.
22. Fish stocks should primarily be regulated by long-term management
plans. The objectives of such plans should be to recover fish stocks
and ultimately reach maximum sustainable yields. The time frame
for objectives to be met should be set depending on the state of
the relevant fish stocks. It is therefore crucial to establish –
where this has not yet been the case – an accurate scientific database
and regularly monitor the level of fish stocks, enabling the authorities
to take the appropriate management decisions. Where possible the 2015
deadline should be respected as outlined in 2002 at the World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The ecological sustainability
would hence serve as the priority objective and first rule for fisheries
management.
23. Measures should be urgently implemented for eliminating the
practise of discarding fish. They should be optimally designed at
regional level and on a case-by-case basis. Discards should primarily
be avoided with the use of more selective fishing gear and practices.
As a general rule, all caught fish or other aquatic organisms that
cannot successfully be released uninjured and alive would have to
be landed and counted against quotas. This would serve as an incentive
for responsible behaviour at sea by fishermen. Where catches include
undersized fish or catches above quotas or otherwise illegal catches,
such fish would be forfeited to the state. The information on catch
composition would be used by the scientific community for a better understanding
of the impact of fisheries and by authorities for designing targeted
management measures to avoid bycatches or unwanted catch compositions.
24. It is necessary to develop a regional approach to fisheries
management, as outlined by the European Commission in its Green
Paper. This would ensure that decisions on fisheries were prepared
and taken closer to the stakeholders and the member states of the
region. Thereby one could take account of the specificities of the
marine regions (for example the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the North
Sea and the Mediterranean) and of the fisheries conducted in the
area. The Integrated Maritime Policy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
of the European Union have as their fundamental basis a regional
approach, which now also needs to be formulated into the Common
Fisheries Policy.
25. Decision-making at the highest political level in the institutions
of the European Union should in the future focus on principles and
objectives of the fisheries policy. This is in line with other European
Union policies and the principle of subsidiarity. Decisions on management
and implementation would be made at the regional or, where appropriate,
member state level. Decisions at regional level are likely to find
the best solutions for the development of sustainable fisheries
and for avoiding unnecessary harmonisation of rules. This would
increase the legitimacy of the policy and have a positive effect
on compliance by the operators of the industry. As rules would be
prepared closer to and in collaboration with the industry, the outcome
of agreed rules would better match the anticipated and sought after
impact and minimise the risk of creating incentives for destructive behaviour.
26. There is a long-standing tradition of regional fisheries management
in many sea areas. There is hence a readiness in the regions to
assume responsibility for regional management. A regional approach
is also supported by the structure of Regional Advisory Councils
of the European Union and would thereby increase consultation of
stakeholders and compliance by the industry. Attention should be
paid, however, to avoiding duplication and overlaps between different
levels of regional consultation in order to use resources efficiently.
27. Public financial measures should be specifically designed
for the reduction of active fishing capacity. The financing for
capacity reduction would be a one-off significant measure open for
applications until the end of 2013, with the exception of accession
countries such as Croatia which should be granted a longer time
frame. After this date financing of capacity reduction would come
to an end. Instead public financing for modernising and renewal
of fishing vessels would be made possible. As a condition for such
financing the beneficiary would be required to reduce active fishing
capacity from the same fisheries and to a much larger amount than
the financed new capacity.
28. Implementing such a two-edged structural policy for the fishing
fleets would allow for a large reduction of overall active fishing
capacity and a simultaneous modernisation of fishing vessels within
the targeted fisheries. It would also cushion the socio-economic
consequences of capacity reduction and would improve working conditions,
safety and hygiene on board fishing vessels. A one-off financing
for capacity reduction would encourage vessel owners to take decisive
steps, instead of deferring difficult decisions for as long as the option
for a scrapping premium is available. Particular attention should
be paid to the accession countries which cannot benefit from the
same level of European Union funding for the sector, but which must
bring their fishing sector up to equal standards prior to accession.
29. Rights-based management instruments such as Individual Transferable
Quotas (ITQ) may offer possibilities for reducing overcapacity and
for increasing productivity and profitability. Rights-based management
on a case-by-case basis should be given preference; such instruments
are best applied at the level of member states.
30. The consideration of a differentiated regime for small-scale
coastal fisheries. Small-scale coastal fisheries should be supported.
Such fisheries often target local fish stocks that are not regulated
at the European level and their impact on fish stocks is generally
small. These fisheries are important for the coastal regions as
they provide job opportunities in sparsely populated areas with
few other employment possibilities. These basic features of small-scale
coastal fisheries need to be taken into account when reforming the
CFP, especially in the designing of accommodating rules for financial
assistance and management of fishing capacity.
31. Considerable international efforts have been made to curb
illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries. Within the European
Union these measures comprise a whole new set of regulations in
order to achieve the effective enforcement of rules and to identify
and eliminate imports of fisheries products of illegal, unreported or
unregulated origin. These achievements are to be welcomed and the
focus should now be on their effective implementation and the development
of a culture of compliance within the fisheries sector.
32. The above policy guidelines for achieving sustainable fisheries
in Europe should be made part of the reform of the CFP and of national
fisheries policies in Council of Europe member states. The policy
guidelines can be summarised as follows:
- make a determined effort to shift to sustainable fisheries
aimed at ecological sustainability, and accept the short-term consequential
realities;
- manage fish stocks with long-term plans and with the primary
objective of reaching maximum sustainable yield, preferably by 2015;
- eliminate discards by innovative gear design and fishing
practices and the requirement to land all catches and count them
against quotas;
- introduce incentives that encourage responsible behaviour
at sea by fishermen;
- design a two-edged fishing fleet policy consisting of
a one-off temporary fleet overcapacity reduction scheme and a subsequent
fleet renewal scheme requiring large reductions of active fishing
vessels;
- apply rights-based management where appropriate and at
member state level;
- introduce favourable provisions for small-scale coastal
fisheries;
- focus on the implementation of agreed control mechanisms
for the elimination of illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries
and for the development of a culture of compliance;
- as an absolute priority, manage fisheries at the regional
level, restrict European level decisions to overarching principles
and objectives.
2 Section B: The
European Union's Common Agricultural Policy after 2013: towards
a sustainable and equitable European agriculture?
2.1 Introduction
33. Considering that access to safe and nutritious food
is a basic human right, this important issue should be addressed
and policy guidance provided to the member states, especially given
the current political context of the ongoing reform of the European
Union’s Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its possible impact on non-European
Union member states of the Council of Europe and beyond.
34. Food security has become a growing political issue worldwide.
The challenge will be to produce and supply enough safe and nutritious
food in a sustainable way for a growing global population, which
is projected to reach 9 billion people by 2050. According to the
FAO, the demand for food is projected to increase by 40% by 2030
and by 70% by 2050. On a per capita basis,
food production in the least developed countries is already struggling
to keep up with rapid population growth. Moreover, the OECD and
the FAO have forecast that growth in global agri-food trade will
be twice as fast as total expected growth in world trade over the
next three decades.
35. Due to globalisation and past market orientation towards intensive
agricultural production and monocultures, self-sufficiency in food
production has become extremely rare. Most countries today rely
on both import and export markets to feed their population and the
supply chain consequently becomes very sensitive to both economic
and environmental crises. Biodiversity loss and climate change will
inevitably pose additional severe risks for food security and the
agriculture sector.
36. The European Union, as one of the world’s affluent regions,
shoulders responsibility to provide timely answers to address these
concerns first within Europe, but also in relation to its neighbours
and worldwide, making sure that its agricultural and trade policies
do not jeopardise food security in developing countries.
2.2 Overview of the
European Union Common Agricultural Policy
37. The CAP, which came into being with the Treaty of
Rome, is one of the oldest and one of the key European Union policies.
Today it accounts for approximately 40% of the European Union budget
after having reached 75% in the 1980s. Its impact in terms of agriculture,
food security and safety (the availability of food supplies and
the quality of the food products offered to consumers), spatial
planning and rural development, protection of the environment and
of biodiversity, combating and adapting to climate change, and also international
trade and economic and human development, involves an external dimension
that is very hard to distinguish from the internal one. This fully
justifies the attention paid to this subject by the Council of Europe and
all of its member states, since it means that decisions taken by
the European Union regarding the CAP necessarily matter to them.
In this connection, it would doubtless be informative to assess
with greater precision the effects of the CAP on Council of Europe
member states either recently acceded to the European Union or those
that are not members of the European Union and to hear their views
on European Union action in these matters.
38. Over the past decades, the European Union Common Agricultural
Policy has been criticised for its high cost, incentives to overproduce,
for its distorting impact on food prices on world markets, but above
all for inducing intensive farming practice harmful to Europe’s
environment (pollution of soil, water and air; fragmentation of
habitats and loss of wildlife; high energy consumption with high
greenhouse gas emissions). Moreover, 85% of CAP direct payments
go to just 18% of farmers, with the largest farms in the old European Union
member states (EU-15) benefiting the most. Wider structural change
in the past has led to the loss of labour-intensive farms, replaced
by resource-intensive farms, with considerable impacts on the environment and
rural vitality.
39. The CAP therefore had to gradually evolve towards a broadening
of its objectives and a redefinition of policy approaches and was
given fresh impetus by the major reform of 1992. Since that date
a virtually continuous reform process has taken place, and today
the CAP is again the focus of discussions as the financial discipline
mechanism – in force until 2013 – is coming to an end. The "health
check" of the Common Agricultural Policy carried out in 2008 revealed
the gap between the CAP's substance and economic reality, and discussions
on the policy after 2013 started in 2010. The European Commission,
through its new Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development,
Dacian Cioloş, officially launched the debate in April 2010 via
a consultation of the principal stakeholders and of civil society
and published the Communication “The CAP towards 2020”
Note in November
2010. The Commission intends to announce the legislative proposals
in mid-2011. This therefore seems to be a particularly appropriate
time for the Parliamentary Assembly to resume specific discussions
on the CAP, along the lines of those that led to the 2005 report
on the costs of the Common Agricultural Policy, prepared by the
Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs.
Note
40. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December
2009, the European Union will have to adopt the proposed reform
by ordinary legislative procedure, the so-called codecision procedure,
and, since agriculture has clearly become an area of shared competence
between the Union and its member states, the reform will have to
comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The European Parliament's
increased budgetary powers could also have implications for the
policymaking process leading to the emergence of the post-2013 CAP.
These factors linked to the institutional reform of the European
Union are a further reason to pay attention to the issue, inasmuch
as they may have an impact in terms of both the substance of the
policies applied and the democratic nature of the decision-making
process.
41. The economic, social and environmental challenges faced today
by all countries worldwide – and in particular European democracies
– are exacerbated by the current economic and financial crisis.
Agriculture is concerned in a number of respects, and it is common
knowledge that the farming sector has been particularly hard hit
by this crisis. In particular, the milk crisis and its repercussions
on farming highlight the problems being encountered by the sector
in the present context and the key importance of the related decisions
taken in the area of the CAP. The post-2013 CAP will have to propose
solutions compatible with the objectives of sustainability and equity
which make it possible both to respond to the current challenges
and to safeguard the future of agriculture in Europe and at world
level.
2.3 The budgetary and
institutional aspects of CAP reform for the post-2013 period – a
milestone in the history of European agriculture
2.3.1 Debate on the CAP's
significance among European Union policies
42. The CAP is frequently criticised for its apparently
high costs. On average, it accounts for €51.8 billion of expenditure,
representing 41.9% of the European Union budget for the 2007-2013
period.
Note These figures bear witness to the
considerable importance attached to this policy among European Union
policies as a whole. As noted, for example, in the report of the
Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
referred to above, the cost of the CAP is far from insignificant.
However, this observation can to some extent be tempered by the
following comments:
- the European
Union budget itself is not very high as compared to the member states'
national budgets;Note
- since it peaked in the mid-1980s the proportion of the
budget spent on the CAP has been constantly decreasing. This relative
reduction has been made possible by the successive CAP reforms'
focus on support for farmers rather than on support for production;
- expenditure on the CAP has been capped for the period
2007-2013,Note with
the result that the inclusion of the farming sectors of the 12 new
member states has taken place at constant cost. This has however resulted
in a very distorting situation between old and new European Union
member states, whereby total direct payments received in the new
European Union member states (EU-12) represents only 12.14% compared
to 87.86% of the total payments received by the old European Union
member states (EU-15);Note
- the CAP is principally financed from European Union funds
and constitutes only a fairly small direct drain on the states'
national budgets.
43. Certain member states which joined the European Union after
the adoption of this strong Common Agricultural Policy have never
been in favour of it, either because they consider that the effort
it entails is excessive compared with the benefits they derive from
it – the position of the United Kingdom in this matter is well known
(as is former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's statement "I want
my money back!"), and it succeeded in negotiating a rebate on its
contribution to the CAP budget – or because they believe that the proportion
of the budget spent on the CAP has a detrimental effect on the capacity
to fund other policies at European Union level (or for both reasons
combined). The European Union member states' attachment to the CAP,
their views on it and, hence, the positions they defend regarding
the post-2013 period vary considerably, to the point where a compromise
may seem difficult to attain. From a strictly budgetary standpoint,
while some countries would like the discussions concerning the 2014-2020
period to result in a genuine withdrawal of the Union from this
sector through a drastic reduction in its CAP-related spending,
which might lead to a renationalisation of agricultural policy,
others hope that the member states will reach agreement on maintaining expenditure
at the current level, failing an increase, so as to preserve a strong
Common Agricultural Policy.
44. The battle over the CAP budget is already under way among
these various parties and is being heavily influenced by the current
serious economic crisis in Europe. Alongside the cohesion funds,
the CAP is among the sectors in which the 27 member states wish
to scale down the Commission's proposals. The Council of Ministers
came out in favour of cutting the latter by €841 million, which
is hard to reconcile with the ambitions of the Europe 2020 economic
strategy. However, such an outcome cannot be taken for granted,
and the European Parliament, vested with new budgetary powers by
the Treaty of Lisbon, could well disrupt the governments' plans.
45. In November 2010, the European Commission issued a Communication
on the future of the CAP and the Fifth report on economic, social
and territorial cohesion. Both documents mark the beginning of consultation processes
on two important European Union expenditures which will continue
until spring 2011 and which will enable the European Commission
to prepare, by summer 2011, legislative proposals for reform in
both areas concerning the next funding period 2014-2020.
2.3.2 A reform adopted
under a radically modified procedure: democratisation of the CAP
46. Previous reforms of the CAP all gave rise to heated
debate among the ministers within the Council of the European Union.
These reforms were mainly decided behind closed doors without any
decision-making role for the Parliament, which was merely asked
to give its opinion.
Note The
Treaty of Lisbon, which recently entered into force, changes this
situation since it includes agriculture among the policy decisions
to be taken by the co-decision procedure. On 8 July 2010, the European
Parliament adopted a resolution on the future of the Common Agricultural
Policy setting out its position and expectations regarding the debate
under way. Armed with their new decision-making powers, the MEPs
intend to bring their full weight to bear in the discussions. The
resolution underlines the need for a strong, fairer, greener and
more sustainable CAP to meet the food security, agricultural, environmental,
energy and rural development challenges of the 21st century. The
European Parliament also now has greater powers with regard to budgetary
decisions concerning the CAP since a distinction is no longer drawn
between obligatory and non-obligatory expenditure. Until now, the Council
had the last say regarding obligatory expenditure, which principally
concerned agricultural spending.
47. This development, tending towards a broader democratisation
of agricultural policy decisions at European level, can but be welcomed.
This is because, setting aside certain of its aspects which may
seem to involve relatively technical questions, the issue concerns
all citizens of the European Union, whether the farmers, who are
directly affected, or other European citizens whose food supply
and, in part, taxation also closely depend on the agricultural policy
decided in Brussels. Although they are not always very well aware
of the fact, European citizens are therefore affected by the CAP
measures in their capacity as farming professionals, consumers or
taxpayers.
2.4 The post-2013 CAP's
objectives and instruments in the face of the challenges of the
21st century: status quo, evolution or revolution?
48. Since the CAP was first established, its objectives,
which are set out in the constituent treaties, have been supplemented
with new concerns. Yet the wording of the treaty is unchanged. Article
39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reiterates
the terms of Article 33 of the Treaty of Rome and sets the following
objectives for the CAP: increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring
a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising
markets, assuring the availability of supplies and, lastly, ensuring
that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. However, at
least two additional concerns emerged in the 1990s and have gradually
grown in importance: protection of the environment and rural development.
Today, more than ever before, the pursuit of these objectives must
entail a debate on how they can be reconciled with one another by
enhancing their consistency. This means that efforts to increase
agricultural productivity must take due account of the other objectives
being pursued.
2.4.1 An efficient, balanced
agricultural and food economy
49. In the past, concern to balance the agricultural
economy led, inter alia, to
the introduction of production quotas for a number of products that
had become prey to overproduction triggered by the direct production support
methods, through price guarantees and export subsidies, which had
so far prevailed. The gradual dismantling of these quota schemes
in recent years has brought to light, through the ensuing crises
in the sectors concerned, the uncertainties inherent in allowing
prices to be determined by market mechanisms alone. Bringing production
more into line with the market is indeed a legitimate, appropriate
goal, but it is inconceivable without putting in place the necessary
safety mechanisms. The recent crisis in the milk sector, which necessitated
the use of intervention techniques to avoid the collapse of a large
number of farms, is the most telling example. The soaring prices
of agricultural commodities such as cereals, which in certain particularly
vulnerable regions of the world led to the events now known as hunger
riots, and in general their extreme price volatility – including
the surge in the price of wheat during the summer of 2010, linked
both to reduced forecasts of the harvest and of trade volumes and
to the speculation surrounding grain production – also show the
need for specific regulation of the agricultural economy and for
the use of exceptional instruments to that end. Although the causes
of the specific volatility of agricultural commodity prices can
be identified with a fair degree of precision – principally uncertain
weather conditions, plant diseases and pests and the opening up
of the markets combined with financial speculation – the responses
to be adopted are far from being a matter of unanimity. The discussions
focus on the technical means available, or which could soon become
available, the appropriateness of having recourse to them, and also
certain political or economic, or more fundamentally political economy,
choices. Mention need but be made here of the debates concerning genetically
modified organisms, use of chemical intrants or market deregulation
and the reduction of customs tariffs to give some idea of the extent
of the disagreements which may lead to deadlocks or irrational decisions.
50. At all events it would seem quite impossible to guarantee
both a fair remuneration for farmers and reasonable prices for consumers
without tackling head-on the imbalance typifying commercial relations between
agricultural producers, on one hand, and food processing and distributing
companies, on the other. The market influence of the latter, which
seem subject to no real limits on their consolidation and concentration, results
in a number of practices that are harmful to both farmers and consumers
as well as for the equilibrium of agricultural production and agricultural
commodity markets as a whole. Promoting short food supply chains, in
particular direct farm-to-consumer selling, and also taking into
consideration non-market trade mechanisms, as suggested by many
unions and NGOs and also by MEP José Bové in his draft report for
the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on "Fair revenues
for farmers: a better functioning food supply chain in Europe",
Note having regard to a Commission Communication
on the same subject,
Note will not solve all the problems
but are unquestionably among the avenues to be explored. To this
end, regulations regarding food safety and hygiene must be made
more flexible where appropriate in order to accommodate needs of
short food chains. In addition, there is a need to make prices more
transparent at all stages of the distribution and processing of
agricultural products and foodstuffs.
51. It is also important to defend the specificity of the farming
sector in future negotiation rounds at the World Trade Organization,
since, in view of their special role in feeding the population and
guaranteeing security of supply at regional level, agricultural
products cannot be treated as mere commercial goods, like industrial products
in general. This is a matter of securing recognition at the international
level of the necessity for each major region of the world to be
able to assure the bulk of the production needed to cover the food
requirements of its inhabitants and to produce food closest to the
consumer. Avoiding a competitiveness race in terms of the prices
of basic food commodities can be seen to be essential to the preservation
of a degree of equilibrium in the production of agricultural and
food products in all of the world's regions. It is also necessary
to enable the most disadvantaged areas to develop the local production
of foodstuffs that can satisfy their own needs. Although Ricardo's
theory of comparative advantage is still generally valid, too great
a specialisation of agricultural production (monocultures) in practice
has disastrous consequences, creating situations of economic dependence
with regard to what are vital products in the true sense. From a
European standpoint, it would be advisable to decrease the current
dependence on the large cereals and protein crops producer countries,
particularly in North and South America, by extending the livestock
sector, and especially by returning to more grass-based feed for
ruminants since grassland resources in Europe are underutilised.
2.4.2 A more environmentally
friendly agriculture
52. As already mentioned, protection of the environment
is now part and parcel of the Common Agricultural Policy. Owing
to specialisation and concentration of farms in the past a growing
share of European agriculture tended to become focused on single-crop
farming and intensive livestock breeding, which was seriously detrimental
to the preservation of biodiversity and of a variety of productions.
Moreover, the growth in European agricultural productivity was obtained
only at the price of intensive use of chemical entrants (fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides) and of excessive irrigation, both of
which largely contributed to soil, surface water and underground
water pollution to a critical degree from the standpoint of the
health safety of agricultural products and of water for human consumption.
In addition, soil depletion and the emerging resistance caused by
the heavy use of weed killers and pesticides led to a vicious circle,
making it necessary to use larger and larger quantities of these
chemicals and of fertilisers.
53. When it became clear that continuing in this direction would
cause serious harm to the environment and ultimately make Europe's
land completely fallow, measures were taken to contain the use of
intrants by setting maximum quantity limits and encouraging practices
such as mixed crop farming and crop rotation. In view of this growing
awareness of the degradation of the environment caused by the type
of farming carried out so far, the 1999 CAP reform introduced a
mechanism sanctioning the most harmful practices through a system
of cross-compliance. To encourage farmers to comply more fully with
environmental laws it was decided that non-respect for these laws
would result in a reduction in direct support payments and even,
in certain cases, their complete withdrawal. At the time of the
2003 reform this cross-compliance system was reinforced, going beyond
protection of the environment in the strict sense of the term. Eighteen
standards were adopted in the form of Community directives, with
the aim of protecting the environment, such as the "Birds", "Nitrates"
and "Habitats" Directives, or of guaranteeing food safety with regard
to animal and vegetable products, animal welfare and safe farming
practices. Although these reforms were an undoubted improvement
– despite the implementation difficulties encountered on account
of the reluctance of many farmers, who had long become accustomed
to working without such constraints, and also the bad will displayed
by many states, which delayed transposing these directives into
domestic law, improperly transposed them or failed to apply the
ensuing regulations – it would now be desirable to do even more
to foster protection of the environment in the agricultural sector
by further supplementing this negative approach involving sanctions
with a positive approach involving incentive payments for farmers
who go beyond mere compliance with legal and regulatory requirements
and adopt farming techniques constituting good environmental practice.
Such agri-environmental payments under the second pillar of CAP
offer the advantage of fostering use of the most environmentally friendly
farming practices, such as those used in organic agriculture and
in High Nature Value (HNV) farming. However, they currently seem
underused or inappropriately used by many European Union member
states. According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA),
Note there
is enormous divergence across European Union member states in the
level of CAP expenditure per hectare of farmland (Pillar 1) and
under the agri-environment and Less Favoured Area scheme measures
(Pillar 2). Several European Union member states are located at
the very bottom of the expenditure axis, including the European
Union member states with a high proportion of High Nature Value
farmland.
54. Furthermore, the environmental challenges are today exacerbated
by the need for European agriculture to adapt to and participate
in combating climate change through both mitigation and adaptation
measures. Agriculture is particularly concerned by this problem.
Some sectors of agriculture account for a not inconsiderable share
of greenhouse gas emissions. Mention can be made of livestock farming
which is in the forefront of the sectors concerned, as a result,
in particular, of the significant quantities of methane emitted
by cattle during rumination and by animal manure. Apart from methane
production, livestock farming also emits large quantities of carbon
dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates
that the meat industry as a whole accounts globally for 18% of all
anthropic greenhouse gas emissions. It is however essential not
to fall into the trap of blanket stigmatisation and to reconsider
our dietary habits (consume less meat) on the one hand and on the
other hand to consider the means of fostering the best farming practices, that
is to say those that consume the least energy and produce the least
greenhouse gases, while nonetheless allowing a sufficient level
of production. Moreover, farming suffers the adverse effects of
climate change and of the increased frequency of extreme weather
events, which in many cases make farming conditions more difficult
and more uncertain. It has therefore become absolutely essential
to adapt European agriculture and the surrounding economy – such
as recourse to insurance mechanisms – to address this new situation.
The Common Agricultural Policy has a key role to play in this respect
and must encourage this adaptation process as far as possible. It
should also be noted that crops conversely have a positive impact
on the greenhouse gas emissions balance by capturing carbon dioxide
from the air, naturally on condition that crops grown for food or for
industry do not replace forests, which are far more efficient at
carbon sequestration.
2.4.3 A policy guaranteeing
safety, quality and diversity of agricultural products
55. Environmental issues go hand in hand with growing
concern among European consumers and public authorities to ensure
the safety and quality of food products derived from agriculture
and agribusiness. The bovine spongiform encephalopathy epidemic
and the avian influenza crisis confronted farmers and the authorities
with their responsibilities in these fields. However, these particularly
serious ad hoc events are in reality only the tip of the iceberg,
and there is an increasing body of evidence of the links between
diet and public health. It is therefore essential to focus on this
aspect of the question and to broaden the scope of agricultural
policy to include food-related issues. Consumer choices and habits
can naturally not be left out of the equation, and it is for this
reason that a public education and awareness-raising effort should
be made, in particular with regard to young people.
56. The safety and quality of food products can also be ensured
through existing standards in matters of control, traceability and
labelling. In this area the European Union applies a "from farm
to table" approach, entailing inspections and monitoring at all
stages in the food chain, and a number of rules concerning the labelling
of products offered for consumption. However, the entire set of
regulations could usefully be reinforced so as to eliminate the
remaining loopholes. Among other things, indicating the origin of
products imported from countries that do not enforce standards equivalent
to the European health, environment and labour standards would offer
the advantage of allowing consumers to choose according to their
personal preference, rather than solely on a price basis. Labelling
requirements should, in addition to the current rule of labelling
to all products containing GMOs, apply also to livestock products
from animals reared on GMO feed and products derived from them,
such as dairy products. With regard to the safety and quality of
food products derived from agriculture and agribusiness, the highest
levels of precaution and transparency must apply and no compromises
can be accepted.
57. There must be a genuine quality policy for agricultural products.
Guaranteeing the quality of agricultural products consists in both
ensuring minimum quality standards for all products and promoting
high-end quality products, notably through quality guarantee schemes
such as the PDO (protected designation of origin), PGI (protected
geographical indication) and TSG (traditional specialities guaranteed)
schemes or the new "Euroleaf" logo for products derived from organic
farming. The aim here is to meet consumer expectations as far as
possible and to market high added-value products in Europe and beyond
the Union's borders. This was the subject of a European Commission
Communication on agricultural product quality policy, adopted on
28 May 2009.
Note Following these strategic orientations,
the Commission subsequently presented legislative proposals and
guidelines in December 2010, the so-called “Quality package 2010”;
- a new “Agriculture Product Quality
Schemes Regulation”,Note reinforcing the flagship scheme
for protected designations of origin and geographical indications
(PDOs and PGIs), overhauling the traditional specialities guaranteed
scheme (TSGs), and laying down a new framework for the development
of Optional Quality Terms, such as feeding method and production
method;
- a new general base-line marketing standardNote for
all agricultural products and a specific power to adopt place-of-farming
and other sectoral rules for marketing product;
- new guidelinesNote of best practices on voluntary certification
schemes and on the labelling of products using PDO-PGI ingredients.
58. This ambitious policy should be endorsed, since it will help
to ensure the profitability and competitiveness of European agricultural
products and to preserve their authenticity and diversity. A further
aim is to encourage the conclusion of agreements on reciprocal recognition
of designations of origin between the Union and its trading partners,
in particular European non-European Union member states, with a
view to guaranteeing respect for these designations beyond the Union's
borders.
2.4.4 An agricultural
policy conducive to balanced rural development
59. Rural areas cover a majority of the European Union's
territory (91%) and are home to more than half of its population
(53%). The Union's territorial, economic and social cohesion objectives
cannot be attained without an effective, sustainable rural development
policy. There are clear links between the agricultural sector and
rural development. Alongside its first pillar, relating to the market,
the Common Agricultural Policy accordingly includes a second pillar
concerning rural development policy. The aim of the latter policy
is to preserve the European agricultural model and defend the principle
of family farms. It is mainly geared to the concept of the multifunctionality
of agriculture. This consists in defending the standpoint that,
although producing agricultural goods is farming's primary role,
this economic function goes hand in hand with other complementary
functions, such as protecting the environment and natural resources,
rural development, stewardship of the landscape and ensuring food
quality and safety. This in fact entails focusing on farmers' production
of public goods that are not directly linked to trade concerns but
represent what are referred to as positive externalities.
60. Promoting these functions can today be seen to be of crucial
importance in meeting the challenges that globalisation, pressure
on resources, climate change and population ageing pose for 21st
century Europe, all presently exacerbated by the economic and financial
crisis. Rural development policy should therefore be supported and
reinforced, in particular with a view to achieving the goal of the
Europe 2020 strategy of turning the European Union into a smart,
sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity
and social cohesion. This strategy entails preserving the balance
and interconnection between urban, peri-urban and rural areas, at
both the local and regional level and the level of the states and
the Union, and also between European regions themselves. Agriculture
and the agricultural model here play a vital role in enabling unity,
equilibrium and equity in diversity. Defending economic activity,
employment and access to services in rural areas, especially those
which are disadvantaged, such as islands or mountain areas, must
be a priority so as to prevent rural depopulation and the desertification
of entire regions and thereby foster a balanced distribution of
Europe's population over the entire territory. Synergies must be
established between different activity sectors in rural areas, and
links with urban areas must be reinforced. To that end, there is unquestionably
a need to develop the consistency of the first and second pillars
of the CAP, and also between support systems under the second pillar
and under the structural funds. Lastly, for reasons of equity it
will be necessary to abandon the system of traditional criteria
on which the first pillar payments are based, since its role of
ensuring transition following the most recent admissions of new
member states is no longer justified today.
61. In the final analysis, if the intention is that European agriculture
should continue to make it possible to feed the population of Europe,
without harming farmers in other parts of the world and while protecting
the environment and preserving territorial cohesion, farmers must
be permitted to make a living from the sale of their products, without
ruling out support mechanisms as and when necessary. This will mean
maintaining the status quo while at the same time innovating with
regard to regulation of agricultural markets and food prices. It
will be necessary to reconcile the objectives of the CAP and of
the common trade policy, so as to avoid contradictions. However,
direct support for farming activity and incomes will doubtless still
be essential. As recommended by the European Union Committee of
the Regions in its opinion "The future of the CAP after 2013", which
it adopted at its 85th plenary session held on 9 and 10 June 2010,
the aid allocation and distribution system could be as follows:
the first level of aid would consist of single payments per hectare, subject
to compliance with environmental requirements, while a second level
of aid would reward good environmental practices that go further
than the minimum requirements, and a third, with a regional development
focus, would support farmers in disadvantaged areas, such as mountain
regions, and all of these aids could be subject to regional adaptation
under European Union supervision. To promote employment and greater
social justice, it could also be interesting to subordinate or adapt
these different levels of aid to the agricultural employment situation
in different regions, and also to take account of the terms of employment
and remuneration offered to agricultural workers on individual farms.
2.4.5 Position of the
European Parliament
62. In its Resolution
Note adopted
on 8 July 2010, the European Parliament stressed that the funds
allocated to finance the CAP must be “at least maintained during
the next financial period”. In addition, agriculture policy should
not be “renationalised” and direct payments to farmers should be
fully funded from the European Union budget to avoid any co-financing
by governments that could erode fair competition within the single
market. MEPs also consider that a European Union-funded top-up payment
should be made available to reward farmers for reducing carbon emissions
and increasing soil sequestration, on a per unit of production basis.
63. “A fair distribution of CAP payments, fair to farmers in both
new and old European Union member states should be the guiding principle
of the CAP reform”. The Resolution calls for more objective criteria,
partly to reduce disparities in direct payments, considering the
current “hectare based system inappropriate”, and partly to reflect
regional diversity. The European Parliament holds that the level
of direct payments should be maintained.
64. The high standards of food safety, environment, social legislation
and animal welfare that farmers in the European Union must meet
should be rewarded. Therefore, imports from third countries should
meet the same criteria with due respect for World Trade Organization
rules. Traceability should be improved to allow consumers to make
informed choices. Food quality policy is also crucial to improve
the sector’s competitiveness. Geographical indications of origin
need to be strengthened and enforced using protection and promotion
instruments, allowing the European Union to keep leadership in this
area on the world markets.
65. To ensure fair revenues to the farming community, the European
Parliament proposes strengthening producers’ bargaining power in
the food supply chain vis-à-vis retailers and other players, in
addition to improving price transparency. MEPs also call for a “safety
mechanism” to respond to market developments and extreme price volatility
backed by instruments specifically designed to increase price stability.
New measures are also proposed, such as harvest risk insurance policy
to cope with extreme climate conditions.
66. To counter the abandonment of land, to promote green growth
and rural development must remain a central aim of the future CAP
and the current two-pillar structure should be maintained. With
the view to attracting young farmers, MEPs propose setting up favourable
loans for investment to meet high start-up costs and overcome current
difficulties in accessing credit.
67. This position aligns the European Parliament with the position
of European Union member states that oppose a radical reform of
the CAP.
2.4.6 Position of the
non-governmental sector (NGOs)
68. As part of the consultation process launched by the
European Commission, among the studies submitted by NGOs, five farming
and environmental NGOs
Note have
published joint proposals for a transformation of the CAP
Note to
help farmers rise to the challenge of sustainable farming. These
NGOs consider that the CAP requires radical change to justify 40%
of the European Union budget and to ensure,
inter
alia, that environmental benefits which are needed are
actually delivered. They consider that the current CAP provides most
of the funding to a very small number of large or resource intensive
farms, and “all too often to those engaging in unsustainable practices”.
69. A radical reform is needed – both in the objectives of the
CAP and in its delivery mechanisms – with adequate financing allocated
to measures that can deliver the policy’s revised objectives. Reshaping
the CAP to meet modern policy objectives would inevitably entail
a considerable redistribution of funding between beneficiaries.
70. The non-governmental grouping proposes the following environment-related
objectives for the post–2013 period:
- to create the environmental conditions to sustain long-term
agricultural production through the protection of ecosystems and
their services (soil, air and water) and the sustainable use of
natural resources;
- to accelerate the transition towards resource-efficient
farming that is less dependent on fossil inputs and more resilient
in the face of climate change and other external pressures;
- to promote conditions for the production of safe, healthy
and high quality food;
- to maintain and enhance (wild) farmland biodiversity by
halting and reversing declines;
- to maintain (domesticated) agricultural biodiversity;
- to contribute to achieving “good status” in European freshwater
systems and adjacent coastal waters;
- to contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation;
- to support the maintenance of landscapes and rural heritage
rich in aesthetic, cultural and historical value;
- to contribute to the rural vitality of areas highly dependent
on agriculture and where this is important to support the viability
of those farming systems which underpin the delivery of public goods;
- to promote enhanced animal welfare;
- to support sustainable food systems which better connect
producers and consumers.
71. According to NGOs, a radical transition is needed toward sustainable
farming practices that can provide long term optimal yields, while
using natural resources efficiently. Such practices need to be sensitive
to biodiversity and ecosystem functionality and result in production
of high quality, safe and healthy products. The transition needs
to incorporate the general principles of integrated production.
These principles include a variety of complementary strategies such
as using robust and well-adapted plant varieties, caring for healthy plants
and soil, management of nutrient cycles, reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, maximising carbon storage and a significant reduction
in the use and dependency on chemical inputs (fertilisers and pesticides). While
some measures should be legally binding, others could be incentive-driven
through public funding.
72. Payments should therefore shift from subsidy entitlements
towards agreements underpinning payments for public goods in a transparent
and accountable way. The NGOs propose a range of tools for supporting
good practice, including a basic flat-rate payment, based on robust
commitments, for farmers to deliver beyond the mandatory baseline,
and higher payments for systems delivering higher benefits such
as organic farming and high nature value farming. Targeted agri-environment
payments should address more specific issues and protect valuable
habitats and species. NGOs also propose a range of public investments
in sustainable farming and local communities to help build a knowledge-based,
resource efficient and viable farming sector.
2.4.7 European Commission
communication
73. Following the extensive public debate, the European
Commission issued its Communication “The CAP towards 2020: Meeting
food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future”
Note in
November 2010. The Communication outlines three main objectives
for the future CAP:
Objective 1: Viable food production:
- to contribute to farm
incomes given that price and income volatility and natural risks
are more significant than in other economic sectors;
- to improve competitiveness of the agricultural sector
and to enhance “value share in the food chain”;
- to compensate for production difficulties in areas with
specific natural constraints and to avoid land abandonment.
Objective 2: Sustainable management of natural resources and
climate action:
- to guarantee sustainable
production practices and secure the enhanced provision of environmental public
goods;
- to foster green growth through innovation (new technologies,
new products, changing production processes, responding to new patterns
of demand in the context of emerging bioeconomy);
- to pursue climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.
Objective 3: Balanced territorial development:
- to support rural employment
and maintain social fabric of rural areas;
- to allow for structural diversity in the farming systems,
improve conditions in small farms, and develop local markets (contribute
to attractiveness and identity of rural regions).
2.5 Impact of the CAP
on the new European Union member states and accession countries
74. The 2004 and 2007 successive enlargements of the
European Union increased the overall agricultural area by around
40%, the number of farms by 140%, and the number of agricultural
workers by 100%,
NoteNote thereby boosting its production
potential and making agriculture more important. In the new European
Union member states, agriculture plays an important role in the
national economy and in rural life. Data at the time of the enlargement
has shown that 22% of the total area is dedicated to agriculture
in the new European Union member states, while in EU-15 it is only
4%. The share of the agricultural workers in the total working population in
the new European Union member states is 13%, while in EU-15 it is
only 1.6%. The share of agriculture in the GDP is 2.8% and 1.6%
respectively. In certain rural areas of the new European Union member
states agriculture is the only source of income.
75. However, the average agricultural production level in the
new European Union member states is far below the EU-15 average.
Farming is characterised by a high proportion of small, semi-subsistent,
part-time holdings with low level of production technology and of
invested capital. The number of co-operatives and producer organisations
is inadequate and farmers do not have ownership in the food processing
business. But, on the other hand, subsistence and semi-subsistence
agriculture are of great social, cultural and environmental importance.
76. The accession of the twelve new European Union member states
increased the number of European consumers by 55%.
Note EU-15
exporters increased their market share in the new member states,
especially as regards processed goods. The membership provided better
conditions for the EU-15 investors in the agri-food sector as well.
77. In terms of European Union expenditure, the 12 accession countries
received SAPARD
Note assistance from
2000 until their accession in 2004 with a yearly budget limited
to €520 million, representing slightly above 1% of the European
Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF). In the 2004-2006
period the 10 new European Union member states received about 5-8%
of the EAGGF allocations. By the end of the 2007-2013 financial
period, the share of direct payments and rural development of EU-12
is expected to rise to only 19% of the total CAP budget, while corresponding
to nearly 30% of the utilised agricultural area and more than 50% of
agricultural workforce.
78. The Act of Accession introduced a long phasing-in period of
nine years (2004-2013), with a very low starting level for the direct
CAP payments in the new European Union member states (25% of the
level applicable in the old European Union member states EU-15),
while at the same time the new member states (EU-12) had to shoulder
high social and economic costs in order to adapt to and integrate
the CAP rules. Consequently, the situation resulted in distorted
competition within the Single Market to the detriment of farmers
in the new European Union member states. In other words, the different
levels of direct payments between the EU-12 and EU-15 have not ensured
a level playing field, and in several new European Union member
states the producers lost ground even on their domestic markets.
Moreover, the new member states (EU-12) were forced to apply complementary
national direct payments (CNDP “top-ups”), which can be considered
as a form of co-financing and which has led to serious political
and economic difficulties among EU-12 countries. Due to budgetary
constraints and contrary to the general objectives and principles
of the CAP – and also contrary to the practice in EU-15 – the majority
of EU-12 was forced to regroup part of their Community rural development
allocations (under pillar 2) for CNDP purposes.
79. It is therefore crucial – in political, economic and social
terms – to address the issue of equity between European Union member
states for the next CAP funding period 2014-2020.
2.6 Conclusions
80. It is the rapporteur’s opinion that the forthcoming
CAP reform for EU-27 has to bring more general and simpler rules
to adapt to extremely diverse agricultural circumstances in the
enlarged European Union, to achieve also better equity between member
states and redress the current wide disparities in direct payments. Moreover,
the CAP has to respond without delay to the new challenges of the
21st century and the rapporteur therefore warmly welcomes the Commission’s
Communication issued in November 2010 which outlines the three main
objectives for the CAP reform: viable food production; sustainable
management of natural resources and climate action; and balanced
territorial development.
81. In terms of viable food production, the rapporteur underlines
the need for every nation to strive to produce its own basic food
and be self-sustained, and to produce food “closest to the consumer”,
promoting short food supply chains in order to cut down on excessive
transport, distribution and retail costs in addition to cutting
down on greenhouse gas emissions due to transport. The rapporteur
also welcomes the Commission proposals in the “Quality package 2010”
which reinforce schemes for protected designations of origin and geographical
indications (PDOs and PGIs) and provide Guidelines of best practices
on voluntary certification schemes, which would enable consumers
to make better informed choices.
82. Concerning sustainable management of natural resources and
climate action, the rapporteur highlights the position of environmental
NGOs that a radical transition is needed toward sustainable farming
practices that can provide long-term optimal yields, while using
natural resources efficiently. Such practices need to be sensitive
to biodiversity and ecosystem functionality and result in production
of high quality, safe and healthy products. The rapporteur emphasises
the need to provide adequate support to organic farming and high
nature value farming in addition to agri-environmental measures
which would apply more generally across the farming spectrum. In
addition to applying the principles of integrated production mentioned
previously, it is necessary to preserve genetic diversity and ancient
breeds; and it would seem crucial to extend the livestock sector
and re-establish the link between growing crops and animal breeding
in order to radically reduce the use of synthetic fertilisers.
83. With regard to a balanced territorial development, the rapporteur
agrees with the opinion of the Committee of the Regions that rural
development policy should be reinforced, in particular with a view
to achieving the goal of the Europe 2020 strategy of turning the
European Union into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering
high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. Agriculture
– one that applies a more sustainable agricultural model – should
play a vital role in enabling unity, equilibrium and equity in diversity
across the European continent, and a vital role in averting land
abandonment and depopulation in rural areas. Synergies must be established
between different activity sectors in rural areas, and links with
urban areas must be reinforced. To that end, there is unquestionably
a need to develop the consistency of the first and second pillars
of the CAP, and also between support systems under the second pillar
and under the European Union structural funds.
84. Finally, in the context of international relations and growing
global concern for food security, and in accordance with the Declaration
of the World Summit on Food Security,
Note the rapporteur pleads that the European
Union policies – notably agriculture, trade and development policies
– contribute to increase sustainable agricultural production and
productivity in the developing countries, help those countries invest
in mitigation and adaptation policies to increase resilience to
climate change, with particular attention to small agricultural
producers and vulnerable populations.
