| |
@grar.de Aktuell - 18.03.1998
Agenda 2000: EU-Kommission stellt Gesetzentwürfe vor (englisch)
Die Gesetzentnwürfe der EU-Kommission (für die Vollständigkeit keine
Gewähr)
Agenda 2000 : the legislative proposals In its Agenda 2000 communication
of 16 July 1997 the European Commission set out proposals for the reform
of existing European Union policies, the process of Enlargement an the
financial framework for the period 2000-2006. The legislative proposals
adopted by the Commission today provide the legal texts on which
decisions can be taken on the policy reforms proposed in Agenda 2000 and
on the new pre-Accession aid instruments. The Commission has also
adopted a report on the working of the Interinstitutional Agreement
(IIA) on Budget Discipline and its proposal for a new Financial
Perspective for the period 2000-2006.
The proposals adopted today fall into four main groups as follows:
- agricultural Regulations
- regulations on the Structural and
Cohesion Funds
- pre-Accession instruments, and
- the Financial
Perspective for 2000-2006
(together with reports on the operation of the IIA and the loan
guarantee Regulation).
- It should also be noted the the Commission adopted today a proposal
for a revised Financial Regulation for Trans European Networks, thus
adding a further dimension to this package in a priority area. - Still
to come in the autumn of 1998 is the Commission's comprehensive report
on the own resources system which will also address the development of
relative budgetary positions of the Member States. - Commenting these
proposals, Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission,
recalled that :
'Agenda 2000 is our vision of Europe for the year 2000 and beyond : the
future of the Union's policies, the road towards enlargement, the
financial framework'. He added : 'The process of enlargement has in the
meantime been launched on the basis of what we had proposed'. Eight
months after the presentation of Agenda 2000, the proposals adopted
today translate in concrete acts the orientations of last July.
Appealing to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers,
Jacques Santer stated: 'We will have to work with determinrecalled that
: 'Agenda 2000 is our vision of Europe for the year 2000 - The Common
Agricultural Policy The main proposals for new agricultural Regulations
cover:
- revised Council Regulations for the common market organisations for
cereals, arable crops, beef and milk
- a revised Council Regulation
on olive oil (which follows the recent proposal on tobacco and will be
followed by a proposal on wine before June 1998
- a 'horizontal'
Regulation to introduce some common provisions on cross compliance with
environmental conditions, modulation of payments linked to the labour
force and an element of degressivity in large payments
- a revision
to the EAGGF Financing Regulation (729/70)
- a new Regulation
covering rural development measures financed by the EAGGF both from its
Guidance Section (in objective 1 areas) and from the Guarantee Section
(elsewhere).
All the agricultural proposals are due to come into effect in the year
2000. They represent a further major step in the direction of the reform
of the CAP which was started in 1992. As indicated in Agenda 2000, the
further reductions in market support prices proposed and the increase in
direct payments to farmers are designed to improve the competitiveness
of EU agriculture on domestic and world markets thus reducing the risk
of a return to the production of expensive and unsaleable surpluses
while avoiding over compensation. Part of the reinforced direct payments
will take the form of a financial envelope which Member States can
distribute, subject to certain criteria, thereby allowing Member States
to address their specific priorities. Lower prices will benefit
consumers and leave more room for price differentiation in favour of
quality products. Greater market orientation will prepare the way for
the integration of new Member States and reinforce the EU's position in
the coming WTO Round. Moreover, there will be increased emphasis in the
new CAP on food safety and environmental concerns. The EAGGF (European
Agricutural Guidance and Guarantee Fund) rural development Regulation
will for the first time provide an integrated approach to the
development of the countryside.
This comprehensive set of proposals are designed to ensure in a
comprehensive, simplified and non bureaucratic manner that the European
Model for Agriculture can be sustained in the long term, to the benefit
not only of the EU agricultural industry but also for consumers,
employment and indeed for the EU's society as a whole. Intervention
prices in the dairy sector, as in the arable and beef sectors, will no
longer be subject to annual price fixing but will be fixed for the whole
period covered by Agenda 2000.
It can be expected that internal market prices will stay above the
intervention level. - Arable crops : The intervention price for cereals
will be reduced by 20% in one step in the year 2000 while direct
payments will be increased from 54 ECU/tonne to 66 ECU/tonne. Direct
payments for oilseeds and non-textile linseed will be set at the same
level, thereby eliminating the basic condition for productiondirect
payments will be increased from 54 ECU/tonne to 6 To ensure the
profitability of protein Crops compared to other arable crops, an
additional direct payment of 6.5 ECU/tonne is proposed, bringing the
total available for protein crops to 72,5 ECU/tonne. The specific scheme
for durum wheat which was modified in 1997 will be continued. While
compulsory set-aside will be retained, its compulsory rate will be set
at zero. Voluntary set-aside will be maintained with the same level of
payment as for cereals and may be guaranteed for 5 years, thus enhancing
its positive environmental contribution. Silage maize will continue to
be eligible for direct payments as its abolition would involve expensive
control mechanisms given that the final use of maize i.e. for grain or
silage may depend on weather conditions which cannot be foreseen when
applying for the arable crop payment. Compared with the proposal from
1997, the retention of this aid will result in important cost savings
for many producers notably those in the dairy and beef sectors and is
therefore taken into account in the calculation for the increase in
direct aids for these two sectors. - Beef : The effective market support
level will be reduced by 30% in three equal steps, starting on 1 July
2000. From 1st July 2002 the present intervention system will be
replaced by a private storage regime. To ensure a fair standard of
living for the farmers concerned, direct payments will be increased for
male bovine animals and suckler cows. A new direct payment for dairy
cows will be introduced. Flexibility and targeting will be increased by
entitling Member States to allocate part of the increase in direct
payments (national envelope) according to specific priorities. The
amount of direct support follows the Agenda 2000 proposal but will be
sub-divided into a Community-wide basic payment and an additional
payment according to national provisions. However, the premium for bulls
has to take into account the benefits accruing to producers through the
retention of the arable crop payment for silage maize. The basic
premiums will be (2002 level) 220 ECU for bulls, 170 ECU for steers, 180
ECU for suckler cows, and 35 ECU for dairy cows. These basic amounts
correspond to the pre-reform level of the aid plus 50 % of the increase
in the total premium. The remaining 50 % of the increase is distributed
to Member States according to their share in production, in order for
Member States to distribute these amounts within certain limits and
according to common rules. While permitted flexibility, Member States
will be responsible for a non-discriminatory implementation. Payments
should be allowed per animal and/or per hectareof permanent pasture. For
pastureland, a maximum amount per hectare should be approximately equal
to the average area payment for arable crops. When account is taken of
the resources being provided through the basic premia and the additional
payments, the level of premia which could be paid to producers would be
: 310 ECU/head (+130%) for bulls paid once in their lifetime, 232 ECU (+
113%) for steers paid twice in their lifetime, 215 ECU/headadditional
payments, the level of premia which could be paid to producers would be
: 310 ECU/head (+130%) for bulls paid once in their lifetime, 232 ECU (+
113%) for steers paid twice in their lifetime, 215 ECU/head (+ 48%) for
suckler cows per year and 70 ECU/head (new premium) per year for dairy
cows to take account of the impact of the reduction in beef support
price on the value of dairy. Regional ceilings for the number of premium
rights for male animals will be fixed at 1997/98 levels i.e. 9.095
million. The deseasonalisation premium for steers will continue as at
present while the calf processing scheme will be aboslihed. In addition,
it seems appropriate to introduce national ceilings to cover all suckler
cow premium rights. The overall number of premium rights would therefore
be reduced to the level of actual use in a certain reference period
(best out of 1995/1996 plus 3% i.e. a total of 10.285 million). The
total number of animals qualifying for the special premium and the
suckler cow premium will be limited to 2 livestock units (LU) per
hectare forage area. Producers with a stocking density less than 1.4 LU
per hectare and currently practising extensive production methods
(animal grazing on pasture land) may qualify for an additional payment
of 100 ECU (+ 178%) per premium granted. Dairy Regime It is proposed to
reduce intervention prices for butter and skimmed milk powder by 15% in
four steps to improve competitivness on the internal and external
markets. While this proposed price decrease goes beyond the Agenda 2000
proposal, it is justified not only by the added benefit in terms of
competitiveness but also, in comparison to the Agenda 2000 proposal, by
the fact that available milk quotas will be increased and also by the
fact that dairy farmers will partially benefit from the retention of a
crop premium for silage cereals. Moreover, most farmers can be expected
to adapt to their new situation through cost saving measures. The amount
of direct support per producer will be based on the number of premium
units. This number will be determined by dividing the individual
reference quantity by the average milk yield in the Community of 5,800
litres/cow. In order to target support to producers rather than quota
holders, temporarily leased quota will be accounted to the producer who
has leased it. The amount of direct payment per premium unit follows the
Agenda 2000 proposal but will be sub-divided into a basic payment of 100
ECU per premium unit and an additional payment of 45 ECU per unit
according to national provisions. The basic cow premium will be phased
in gradually in four equal steps in parallel with the reduction in
guaranteed prices. Milk quota It is proposed to maintain milk quotas
until 31 March 2006. In view of the impact of the 15% price reduction on
internal consumption and exports a 2% (2.35 tonnes) increase in the
total reference quantity in four steps is proposed. This additional
quota should be distributed to particular categories of producers who
need particular support, i.e. young farmers and producers in mountain
and nordic areas. It is also proposed that in cases of non permanent
transfer of quota (leasing etc) member states place a certain percentage
of that quota in a national reserve for redistribution. Furthermore
member states will have the possibility of transferring to the national
reserve the quota from those to whom quota reverts at the end of a
leasing contract but who choose neigther to resume production themselves
nor to sell their quota. Mediterranean products In relation to products
which are primarily produced in Mediterranean regions the Commission has
adopted a proposal on olive oil, which follows the recent proposal on
tobacco. A proposal on the wine regime will be presented before June.
Rural development Rural development measures concern in particular
support for structural adjustment of the farming sector (investment in
agricultural holdings, establishment of young farmers, training, early
retirement), support for farming in less favoured areas, remuneration
for agri-environmental activities, support for investments in processing
and marketing facilities, for forestry and for measures promoting the
adaptation of rural areas insofar as these are related to farming
activities and to their conversion. The policy brings together for the
first time all the measures related to the development of the
countryside which were funded by the EAGGF and is to accompany and
complement the proposed reforms in market and price policy. The
reformulated policy involves a radical simplification and allows for far
greater flexibility and subsidiarity. Current eligibility criteria for
support in Less Favoured Areas (LFA) will be modified in order better to
integrate environmental goals into rural development policy; the LFA
scheme will gradually be transformed into an instrument to maintain and
promote low-input farming systems. In addition, targeted
agri-environmental measures will be aimed more specifically at achieving
the objectives of protecting the environment and maintaining the
countryside. Coherence between rural development measures and other
instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy or other Community
policies will be ensured by specific rules, which will ensure that
overlapping between instruments is avoided. Maximum amounts for some
measures will prevent any abuse of rural development support, such as
unjustified additional market support. Rural development measures will
in future be financed by either the Guarantee Section or the Guidance
Section of EAGGF according to the regional context. Rural development
measures covered by Objective 1 programmes and the rural development
Community Initiative will be financed by the Guidance Section of EAGGF.
Other rural development measures will fall under the Guarantee Section
of EAGGF. These will be the accompanying measures and the LFA scheme in
all rural areas as well as measures concerning modernisation and
diversification covered by Objective 2 programmes and by rural
development programmes outside Objective 1 or 2 regions. Horizontal
measures Cross compliance: With respect to integrating better the
environment into the CAP, Member States should apply appropriate
environmental measures concerning the particular market support schemes.
Modulation: The distribution of direct payments among farmers might
cause specific problems within certain Member States which call for a
subsidiarity approach. However, agricultural income including direct
payments has important employment impacts in rural areas. Member States
would therefore be authorised to modulate direct payment per farm within
certain limits and relative to employment on the farm. Funds made
available from aid reductions - either under cross-compliance and/or
under modulation - would remain available for the respective Member
State as an additional Community support for agri-environmental
measures. Ceilings on aid payments: To avoid excessive transfers of
public funds to individual farmers, the Commission proposes to introduce
a degressive overall ceiling to direct payments. The ceiling applies
only to payments under the support schemes once cross-compliance and
modulation have been applied and involves a 20% reduction in payments
between ECU 100,000 and ECU 200,000 and 25% reduction on amounts above
ECU 200,000 Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund The proposals for new
Regulations on the Structural and Cohesion Funds will provide the legal
framework for support from these funds in the next programming period
2000-2006. The package has been constructed around the three principles
enunciated in Agenda 2000, namely concentration, simplification and
clarification of reponsibilities. The legal texts proposed are as
follows : - a new general Regulation including provisions which apply to
all the Funds (this replaces two existing Council Regulations); - new
'vertical' Regulations for each of the four Funds (ERDF, ESF, FIFG and,
for EAGGF, the Rural Development Regulation (see above)); - a revised
Regulation for the Cohesion Fund. The number one priority will be the
EU's poorest regions, as the effort continues to improve their
infrastructure as well as the education and skills of their workforce.
In a new approach, the Strucural Funds also cater for all areas
undergoing structural difficulties, be they industrial, rural, urban or
coastal areas with difficulties in the fishery sector. Under the new
proposals a clearer division of responsibilities is called for between
the Commission and the Member states to improve and accountability, and
hence lead to greater cost-effectiveness. Innovative financial
instruments are foreseen such as loan guarantees and risk capital funds
to increase the leverage of the Structural Funds. And far more than in
the current support period, the Structural Funds will promote
sustainable development and environmental protection. Following last
November's Jobs Summit, which agreed how Europe should act to address
its employment problems, a key task of structural policy will be to
underpin the reform of labour market policies and practices, in line
with the Employment Strategy and the annual employment guidelines for
Member States. Three objectives for the future For the sake of
simplification, the Structural Funds' priority Objectives should be
reduced from seven to three. All regions in the EU will be reevaluated
to determine which of the new objectives they may qualify for in seeking
structural Fund support. The new objectives would be : Objective 1: The
purpose of the first Objective will be to help those regions most in
need, that is those whose level of development (measured on the basis of
figures for the last three available years in terms of GDP per head) is
less than 75% of the Community average. In the future, these regions
will have the same priority they currently enjoy. Although there has
been improvement, these regions are still faced with the most serious
problems of income, employment, infrastructure, and skills levels in the
workforce. Even though these gaps are less now in fields such as
telecommunications, eliminating them entirely will be a long-term
process given the amount of investment required. The Canary Islands, due
to their ultraperipheral status, and the current Obj. 6 regions will
also be covered by Objective 1. All four Structural Funds (European
Regional Development Fund ERDF- , European Social Fund ESF -, European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section EAGGF -
Financial instrument for fisheries guidance FIFG -) will make a joint
effort to assist the development of Objective 1 regions. The current
Objective 1 regions that no longer qualify under the 75 % criterion will
have their assistance phased out gradually, over a six year period. It
is even prolonged to 7 years
|
