 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
CEJA Seminar in Wageningen drafft working document on Humans-Animals-Plants-Society ethical aspects of farming CAP support can play a pre-eminent role in maintaining threatened agricultural systems, notable through less favoured areas measures, where agricultural activity could otherwise disappear. In addition, agri-environmental measures form a key part of the efforts to preserve farm-dependant biodiversity in Europe. Community rules of the well-being of animals have recently been introduced. This working document aims to analyse what extent the CAP reform proposal will be able to integrate environmental and animal welfare consideration into the CAP rules and how to make sure that agricultural practises preserve the environment, safeguard the countryside and preserve Europe’s rural heritage without setting aside the economical perspective for farmers. This working document aims to give an overview of how the CAP reforms deals with ethical aspects of animal and plant productions. 1.0
Within the first pillar through mandatory cross
compliance In the CAP reform, it is proposed to make cross compliance mandatory and offer farmers, who received direct payment in the period 2000-2002, access to a single payment scheme. The single annual payment is meant to be applied for: arable crops, beef and veal, milk and dairy, sheep and goats, starch potatoes, grain legumes, rice, seeds, dried fodder[1]. The
farmer will be free to produce any crop, except permanent
crops, or give up producing and still receive payment, as
long as he keeps the land under good agricultural conditions,
and the single annual payment will be conditioned on
respecting the Community legislation (directives) on public,
animal and plant health, occupational safety, environment
and animal welfare (specified in annex IV of the proposal)
and on respecting the Common
framework on ‘best farming practise’.
The implementation of these conditions will be decided at
the level of the Member State.
1.1
Entitlements of decoupled payments The entitlement per hectare is calculated by dividing the average yearly sum perceived direct payment recieved in the period 2000-2002 dividing by the average number of hectares which gave rise to the direct payments in that period (called the reference amount), covering crop and forage areas but not permanent crops, horticultural crops, forest or non-agricultural land. Payment will be obtained only when an entitlement is accompanied by an eligible hectare. Where the eligible hectares are land owned by the farmer on which he produces arable crops as well as horticultural crops, potatoes and sugar beets (but not permanent crops, forests or areas used for non-agricultural purpose on 31 December 2002). For livestock production without equivalent land base or entitled to recieve more than EUR 10.000 a special payment entitlement will apply with special condition (article 50). In the starting point, the entitlement per hectare is the same for all the hectares belonging to the single producer but can vary between producers. To activate the payment of entitlements it is necessary to possess eligible hectare(s): each entitlement must be accompanied by an eligible hectare. That is the farmers is allowed to sell land and still receive the same amount of payments of entitlements as long as he continues to own eligible hectares equal to the reference amount With introduction of decoupled payment the already established farmers average income level per hectare 2000-2002 will be reduced: 1) in cases where degression/modulation will apply; 2) if the total amount reaches a national/regional ceiling (depending on which ceiling the Member State choose to apply), payments will have to adjusted; 3) by a linear reduction of payments equal to maximum 1% to create the national reserve. The
introduction of mandatory cross compliance will result in
partial or entire reduction of the decoupled payments in
case of non-respect of: obligation arising from about 40
legisative acts; the common framework for good agricultural
practise; or maintaining permanent pasture. Example: A farmer receives EUR 10.000 in direct payments in average for the year 2000-2002 for the production of 30 hectares and different animal premiums. The farmer has another 20 hectares with horticultural products, potatoes and sugar beets, and 10 hectares of forestry. With the introduction of the decoupled system the farmer will receive 30 entitlements of EUR 333 each. The eligible land is 50 hectares without the forestry, meaning that he can sell 20 hectares of eligible land and still be entitled to recieve the single payment scheme of EUR 10.000 (the example does not take into account potential modulation, linear reduction of payment to match financial ceilings and creating of national reserve neither the element of set aside). 1.2
How would the new proposal allow young farmers to
take care of the ethical aspects of animal and plant
productions? 1.2.1
Transfer of entitlements Entitlement may 1) be transfered without prejudice by actual or anticipated inheritance between farmers within the same member state; or 2) be transfered by sale with or without land (art 49). Special payment entitlements, meaning livestock production without equivalent land base, may only be transfered by actual or anticipated inheritance (special condition applies for sheep and goats (art 52)), while no transfer by sale is foreseen.
Farmers who in the period 2000-2002 produced horticultural crops, potatoes and sugar beets, have eligible land without having entitlements are free to buy entitlements to match the eligible hectares. The price of the entitlement will depend on how much the farmer owning the land in the period 2000-2002 recieved in direct payment, and will therefore vary between farmers. Member States/regions are allowed to adjust payment entitlements with respect to regional averages. Furthermore, a member state may define that transfers are limited to the regional level. It should be mentioned that it at present is unclear what will happen to the special payment entitlements in case the farmer is unable to find an inheritant to take over the farm. It is an option that the entitlement in this case could be reallocated to the national reserve. Example: The farmer having 30 entitlements of EUR 333 and 50 hectares of eligible land, could buy another 20 entitlements to increase his/her single annual overall payment. 1.2.2
Renting of entitlements Temporary lease is only allowed if the entitlements transfered are accompanied by the transfer of an equivalent number of eligible hectares. Any entitlement which has not been used in a period of 5 years shall be reallocated to the national reserve (except in cases of force majeure). Example: The farmer having 30 entitlements of EUR 333 and 50 hectares of eligible land, could choose to rent more eligible land and entitlement, to increase the single payment, but cannot match the remaining 20 eligible hectares by leasing only the entitlements. Furthermore, let us assume that our farmer has bought another 20 entitlements and now have 50 entitlements and 50 eligible hectares. If one day the state expropriate 10 hectares to build houses, the farmers eligible hectares will be reduced to 40, meaning that he can only declare the 40 entitlements. However, if he success to buy another 10 eligible hectares over the five years to come he will not loose his right to the again declare all 50 entitlements. 1.2.3
Creating a national reserve for force majeure and new
farmers Member States shall degresively over time proceed to a linear percentage reduction of the reference amount to constitute a national reserve of maximum 1% (article 45). The Member States: · shall use the national reserve to establish reference amounts for already established farmers whose production, due to force majeure or exceptional circumstances (illness of the farmer, illness of the animals, ..), was adversely affected in the reference period, and · may grant reference amounts to new farmers who commence their agricultural activities after 31 December 2000, according to objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competitive distortions. If Member States will succeed in reserving entitlements to the young farmers is still to be seens as many other adjustments might have to be adjusted before covering: 1) Adjustments of reference period Cases of force majeure or exceptional circumstances covers for instance: · the death of the farmer; · long-term professional incapacity of the farmer; · a severe natural disaster gravely affecting the holder’s agricultural land; · the accidental destruction of livestock buildings on the holding; · an epizootic affecting part or all of the farmer’s livestock. The reference period for the single payment scheme is 2000-2002 calender year, years where European agriculture suffered from severe cases of animal epidemics and sicknesses. In cases where the farmer is able to prove that he was a victim to an exceptional circumstance, with might go beyond the above mentioned cases, he shall be entitled to use the 1997-1999 reference period instead, with potential financial adjustments taken from the national reserve. 2) Compensate farming having produced crops in the past which were not eligible for CAP support It will be optional for the Member State to grant an average decoupled payment for crops not currently recieving direct payment. Again, it is not specified in the legisative proposals how to make these adjustments but it seems little realistic to assume that potential adjustments will be made by changing the individual entitlements directly between the already established farmers, meaning that it might have to be adjusted through the national reserve. 3) Adjust entitlement at the regional level In the start, the entitlement per hectare is the same for all the hectares belonging to the single producer but can vary between producers. It is open to member states to adjust payment entitlements with respect to regional averages. During the Agricultural Council of January this year, Portugal, Finland, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Italy and France all expressed concerns with risk of abandonance of less favoured rural areas, poorer areas and peripheral regions, due to a lack of new installations in these areas. This could be a motive for the member states to use this opportunity. It is not specified in the legisative proposals how to make these adjustments but it seems little realistic to assume that potential adjustments will be made by changing the individual entitlements directly between the already established farmers, meaning that it might have to be adjusted through the national reserve. 1) What might be added to the national reserve On the other side, even though not specified, but is possible that the special entitlement payment will return to the national reserve in case the farmer owing special payment entitlement do not have an inheritant. The national reserve can maximum be 1% of the total ceiling of the member state/region. Each of the elements mentioned above makes it reasonable to assume that little entitlements will be left for the young generation in farming through the national reserve, meaning that the new entrant mainly will obtain entitlement through enheritance, and as a result that it will only be new entrants from farming families who will be entitled to recieve payments from the CAP to cover extra costs linked to taken care of the animals, of the environment and of public health. 1.2.4
The price of the land The
establishment of ‘eligible land’ will, in some cases,
have an influence on the prices of the land. The creation of
‘entitlements’ which can be traded will lead to the
creation of a regional/national stock market of
‘entitlements’ to obtain a right to cover extra
production costs linked to the protection of the environment
and the welbeing of the animals. 2.0
Within the second pillar on Rural development Agenda 2000, provides a relevant framework for how to integrate environmental considerations into the CAP, as for instance though the agri-environmental scheme in rural development. In the CAP reform new elements have introduced in Regulation (EC) 1257/99 targeting at the ethical aspects of animal and plant production: 2.1
Expand the compulsary agri-environmental chapter To pay support to farmers who enter into commitments for at least 5 years to improve the welfare of thier farm animal, going beyond usual good animal husbandry practise. Support will be based on the additional costs and income foregone with a maximum of EUR 500 per livestock unit. 2.2
Introduce new chapter to help farmers to meeting
standards Which as something new, among others, gives Member States the possibility to offer temporary and degressive support to their farmers to adapt to the introduction of demanding standards based on Community legislation concerning the environment, public, animal and plant health, animal welfare and occupational safety. Support will be payable on a flat-rate basis and degressive for a max period of 5 years; aids is subject to ceiling of EUR 10.000 per holding per year; aid will only be payable when the applicant already apply the standards foreseen in the national legislation. 3.0
Potential alternatives which could help the young
farmer setting up in a system of decoupled aid linked to
historical preferences The CAP reform links very clearly the payments to environmental and animal welfare concerns, but the essention question for CEJA must be to analyse how the proposals will influence the future installation and if possible come up with new proposals on how these measures should be implemented to ensure that the sector have future perspectives for the young generation in farming and for the one thinking about a future on farming. Enclosed you will find three proposals to be discussed in the seminar in Wageningen: 3.1 Establishing a real
reserve for young farmers First, the objective of the single payment scheme is, presented in a simplified way, to allow farmers to cover extra costs not covered by the market linked to ethical aspects of animal and plant production. In order to give future generation a change to cover these costs too and as a result be competitive at the global market, the entitlement must always (instead of may) be transfered, free of charge, to the young (instead of new) farmers. The national reserve must be minimum (instead of maximum) 1% of the total entitlements. Furthermore,
a high number of young farmer is tenant rather than owner of
the cultivated land. It must be ensure that the entitlement
goes to the farmer preforming the agricultural activity in
2000-2002, even in cases where it was a tenant rather that
the owner of the land, and that the tenant having respected
the legislative framework on public, animal and plant health,
occupational safety, environment and animal welfare and the Common framework on ‘best farming practise’.
3.2
Direct payment to be paid in advance for the new entrant (proposal
AGIA) The indications mentioned in the different documents on young farmers from the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament foresee, also, the need for new solutions to improve the competiveness of farms managed by young farmers. The new
dynamics that is being developed, in the Euroepan and the
global context, put in evidence the need to favorise the
implementation of new technology and to help the realisation
of investment in this direction on the farm enterprises. The
recent proposals to review.reform the CAP, among others,
foresee the adoption of so called decoupling of the direct
aid and the application of dynamic modulation for the
redirection of resources destinated at the second pillar in
which is it clearly included the objective of developing and
reinforcing the agricultural enterprice
(Measure 1 in Council regulation (EU) No 1257/99). In this contest the young farmers find it appropriate to encourage the study and the application of new systems of errogation of the direct aid, taken into consideration in the CAP. As a result, the young farmers proposes to the Commission to evaluate the hypotest to offer to the young farmers these direct aid, foreseen for a certain number of years in the future as some form of credit bond. In this way it would allow the young farmers who maje request and who are able to deliver the necessary guarantees the possiblity to realise the actual values of these aid in the moment where it is most convenient to develop the actual farm. Access to this anticipated financing could be conditioned on the need to prove that the liberalised resources should be used to make investment improvements on the farm. Such a system would allow the young farmer to dispose over resources which could be better used than the annual payments as well as for investments aiming to realise qualitative improvements and to increase the competitivess of the actual productions. The application of this proposals, refering to the young and as a result to a limited number of elements, could inizially be adapted for limited numver of years (3-5 years) to verify the effectiveness and not dependant on future choices concerning the CAP reforms. 4.0 Conclusion The seminar serves as a meeting point to discuss in three workshops with several European/international NGOs to discuss: Agricultural nature management and landscape production in relation to the CAP; The duality of the civilian and the consumer: discussion on determination of social demands, awareness of civilians on ethics aspects of agricultural production and the role of the consumer in buying at the cheapest price, and the role of agri-business; and Animals right to be treated right.This debate will give us great possibility to talk about development of the concept ‘best farming practise’ and the European legislation on ethical aspects of animal and plant production. Secondly
the seminar aims to develop new CEJA factsheets on ‘new
relations to animals’ and ‘the farmers need for
compensation’. And finally serve to discuss the
instruments proposed in the CAP reform and discuss the
alternative mentioned above and potentially integrate one or
more of these ideas into CEJA’s position on decoupling.
Finally it should be mentioned that, according to Agrafact,
both Portugal and Germany stressed during
the Agricultural Council of January, that it is a
unsustainable development to base decoupled payments on
historical preferences as a mean to provide services to
society. [1]
The supplements for durum wheat, energy crops, protein
crops, nuts, rice, potato starch will remained coupled
to production. |
 |
|
|