INFORMAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA
(testo inglese)
Brussels, 28 January 2003
Outcome of the Agriculture Council of January
Agriculture
CAP reform
Commissioner Fischler presented the Commission proposals to reform the CAP. "We want to help farmers resume their role as businessmen. We want farmers to be suitably rewarded for all the services they perform for society. We want farmers to spend the bulk of their working day in the fields and not filling out forms. In return for their money, we believe that consumers and taxpayers deserve high-quality products, responsible stewardship of the environment by farmers and rural landscapes worthy of the name.
"The studies conclude that the July proposals would remove the structural imbalances in, for example, the rye, beef and rice markets; that decoupling aid would NOT lead to farmers leaving the industry as some fear but rather would boost incomes overall, and that the results of investing more in rural development are largely positive. This reform proposal is intended to provide farmers in both existing and future Member States with the long-term stability they need to plan properly and make a going concern of their business.
"Since July, we have made two significant changes to the proposals: firstly the Commission has adopted a proposal to reform the milk regime and secondly we have made wholesale changes to the arrangements for dynamic modulation as a direct consequence of the Brussels Summit in October 2002. The fact that we can now shift only one part of the modulation money to rural development is a direct consequence of the unanimous decision Heads of State took at the Brussels Summit, as well as the fact that modulation and degression can now only start in 2006.
"However, the core element of the reforms is still decoupling. These payments would be conditional upon compliance with binding standards in environmental protection, food safety, animal health and welfare and occupational safety. Farmers who for example use forbidden growth promoters or pollute the soil, will be subject to sanctions. The penalty will take the form of a 10% to 100% reduction of the aid, depending on the severity of the case.
"The most common criticism is that farmers would stop producing and be paid to sit idle. This criticism is completely unfounded! Far from leaving farming, farmers would be more likely to switch at least in part to new, more profitable products. Instead of following product- or animal-specific subsidy signals and the accompanying red tape, farmers' decisions would be dictated by market conditions.
"Our proposal for decoupling explicitly recognises the role of farmers in managing land and rural space, but says that this will no longer be taken for granted. The new single farm payment will not be paid to farmers who fail to manage land according to newly established land management obligations. This means keeping land in good agricultural condition.
"We are therefore not paying our farmers to do nothing. Rather we pay them because we want to support farm income while ensuring adequate land management. In the past we encouraged farmers to produce too much at too high prices, in order to support their income. With our proposals, we don't change our aim of support farm income, but we do so in a way that is more economically and socially acceptable. This is what we mean when we say we want to shift support from product to producer.
"I would also like to talk briefly about the idea mooted in certain quarters of partial decoupling. Our proposal would not entail decoupling aid in all sectors. In those sectors where there is a genuine risk of production dropping to unacceptable levels, aid would continue to be tied to production. This applies to durum wheat, potato starch, rice and feed proteins. I think this should clarify that we do not consider decoupling as a deus ex machina, as some allege. On the contrary, as we have clearly stated in the July communication decoupling comes with benefits and calculated risks that need to be weighed carefully against existing alternatives.
"The essential point to understand is that we will introduce decoupling only as far as is necessary to meet our set goals. We need to introduce greater market orientation, we need international recognition and we must above all ensure that administering two parallel systems does not result in more rather than less red tape.
"One last criticism concerns the linkage between decoupling and the WTO negotiations. Here nobody can dispute the fact that the Commission proposal would strengthen our negotiating hand immeasurably in the Doha Round. But: The drivinging force behind our reforms is not the WTO, it is our strive to change our farm policy to give our farmers, consumers and taxpayers a better deal!
"True, our proposal would have positive side effects on our negotiation position in Geneva. Precisely in the area of domestic subsidies, decoupling, together with our proposal to scrap the de minimis rule for developed countries, would put us ahead of the U.S., our great partner and competitor and would offer developing countries not only lofty talk, but real benefits.", Fischler said.