R ÉPUBLIQUE F RANÇAISE

SUMMARY

RESTORING THE MEANINGFULNESS OF THE CAP

Joint Working Group on the reform of the CAP, between the Committee for European Affairs and the Committee for the Economy, Sustainable Development and Spatial Planning Report by Mr , Mr Jean-Paul EMORINE, Ms. Bernadette BOURZAI et Ms.Odette HERVIAUX, co-chairpersons

Report n° 102 (2010-2011)

Is the CAP ever mentioned without not readily understood by citizens. immediately being associated with the Besides, a part of public opinion believes word “reform”? Yet, the succession of that environmental issues have not been reforms over the last twenty years has not given enough attention within a policy that solved the difficulties in agriculture. is essentially directed at generating high performance in the various farming The CAP has suffered from a loss of sectors. The reform of the CAP is the legitimacy. The fact that agricultural opportunity to re-examine these issues. income aid has been turned into a right is

I. The principles

1 – Food safety must remain one of the market-oriented but maintains a regulatory principles on which the CAP is founded. scheme. This is a basic goal that Europe owes its 4 – The competitiveness of European citizens both in quantitative terms and in agriculture must be assessed on the basis terms of quality and safety. It is also a of other criteria, both social and precaution that Europe owes to the whole environmental. The CAP must allow the world. In the longer term, opting in favour coexistence of an agricultural sector with of imports is tantamount to encouraging strong added value and capable of exclusion since Europe, being wealthy, will exporting with locally-based farming which be able to pay for its food while poor is so essential to territories. countries will not. 5 – The renewed CAP must be simple and 2 – The primary function of agriculture is to clear. To acquire legitimacy, it must seek provide quality food to the population. out the adherence of both civil society and Farming activity takes place in an farmers. The reform cannot be environment which is no less than the implemented without them and, even less common heritage of society and needs to so, against them. be safeguarded. It fulfils numerous useful functions for the country — environmental 6 – must be part of a strategy of services and other “public goods” — that alliances. The joint Franco-German deserve support and reward. position paper is a first success. An agreement involving Poland is also likely 3 – To quote the terms of the joint Franco- to receive everyone’s consensus. German position paper on 14 September

2010, Europe needs a strong CAP that is RESTORING THE MEANINGFULNESS OF THE CAP 2

II. Direct aid

7 – Convergence of the levels of direct misunderstanding. As such it should not support between Member States cannot be maintained. be avoided. It should occur as a gradual 10 – It would be worthwhile to examine the process. It could be organised around the opportunity of setting a ceiling on direct aid idea of a scale of aid that includes a basic by establishing a connection with the level aid common to all Member States and a of employment in the farm or the supplementary aid that would take into agricultural activity. account the average income in the particular country and the ratio between 11 – The European regime of direct aid the farming income and the average should leave some leeway for allocating national income. aids so that Member States are able to support given actions without adversely 8 – This convergence must take into affecting competition between Member account the financial sustainability of the States. reform by the Member States and cannot ignore the levels of contribution of Member 12 – The expression “single payment States to the Union’s budget. entitlement”, translated in French as “droit à paiement unique”, conjures up the idea 9 – The national system of historical of a right to a subsidy. France should references used to calculate the amount of rename this aid “compensatory aid”. direct aid leads to too much inequality and

III. Market regulation

13 – The principle of regulation lies at the international trade in agricultural products heart of the CAP. In an environment where must abide by the principle of reciprocity. prices are extremely volatile, it seems Europe must be able to fight with equal senseless for the to arms. The sanitary and environmental abandon this instrument. requirements the European Union imposes on its own production must also 14 – Implementation of interventions on be applied by the countries exporting to the market must be speeded up and Europe. reduced to less than two months after the first signs of a crisis appear, rather than 17 – The European Union must not, as it belated response. was tempted to do, unilaterally disarm prior to the international trade 15 – Interventions on the market must not negotiations. Agriculture should not be the simply be limited to acting as a safety net adjustment variable. with absurdly low intervention prices. It must be capable of preventing crises. 18 – The European Union must promote the establishment of a common export 16 – If the principle of Community platform. preference is not maintained, then

IV. Interventions in relation to the supply from producers

19 – Interventions should take on new farmers weight in their relations with the forms so as to modernise management industrial and retailing sectors. tools for agricultural holdings and to give

RESTORING THE MEANINGFULNESS OF THE CAP 3

20 – It seems necessary to develop industry and/or retailers, based on a insurance mechanisms for unforeseeable standard European contract. That is to say climate and health-related events, as contracts entered into at the broadest level already authorised by Article 68 of the possible and for which the State would act Regulation on direct support schemes, as as a guarantor, not as manager; well as mechanisms relating to forward ¾ Broaden the scope of the powers given markets. to inter-branch organisations; 21 – Tax rules also need to be adjusted so ¾ Ensure a fair sharing out of the added that farmers can make provision for price value throughout the entire circuit. variation risks, similarly to current 23 – In order to encourage groupings of practices in the industrial sector. producers that, in some sectors, carry very 22 – Concerning producer organisation, it little weight faced with the industrial and appears necessary to: retailing sectors, the use of a budgetary ¾ Adapt European law so that producers tool might be considered in the form of a can form groupings; supplementary aid granted to producers who operate through a professional ¾ Encourage contractualisation between organisation. producers and operators in the food

V. The CAP and the environment

24 – Environmental issues have become be extended to the question of of crucial importance to European society. international trade. Some agricultural trade The CAP must encourage a positive relations were only able to develop contribution of agriculture to the because the environmental cost of environment. transportation is never considered. 25 – The concept of “public goods” does 27 – There are two options: enshrine the idea that agricultural activity ¾ Intensifying cross-compliance through is beneficial to the common heritage and the “greening” of direct aid under the first offers huge potential. But it must be pillar – the Commission’s option; admitted that communication on this topic ¾ Introducing a true territorial and is still difficult. environmental strategy, separated from 26 – Analysis of the environmental direct aid measures, which would be the consequences of farming activity should heart of a rural development policy not limit itself to production conditions but focusing on the territories.

VI. The institutional organisation of the CAP

28 – The current scheme with two pillars between income support (first pillar) and can be maintained but the wording and the structuring actions (second pillar). contents need to be reformulated. ¾ The Working Group proposes a ¾ The current distinction based on policy mix with a first pillar devoted to budgetary grounds (first pillar: European agriculture and food and a second pillar funding; second pillar: co-financing) is oriented towards the territories and the ineffective; environment. ¾ The European Commission proposes a more dynamic temporal separation

RESTORING THE MEANINGFULNESS OF THE CAP 4

First pillar: agriculture and food 34 – The first focus of a renewed rural policy in the framework of the CAP is to 29 – Agriculture should be re-budgeted as work in conjunction with farmers: one of the items in the pluriannual financial framework. ¾ Provide support for changes in the farming profession so that producers are 30 – The first pillar should serve the encouraged to increase added value; farmers with simple instruments, ¾ Encourage local relationships between compensatory aids, intervention producers and consumers or people who mechanisms and measures supporting the counsel and advise on matters relating to competitiveness of the agricultural sector. food. Environmental cross-compliance must be simplified. 35 – The second focus of a territorial policy concerns the environment. Rural 31 – Modulation – the gradual transfer of areas are in a better position to implement the first pillar to the second pillar – should specific measures: measures to fight be eliminated. climate change, biodiversity promotion, Second pillar: the territories and the protection of water quality, anticipation of environment difficulties in water supply, etc. 32 – The second pillar would focus on the 36 – The various measures under the territories (including aids in mountain second pillar could be funded in a way regions and disadvantaged areas) and the similar to that used for structural funds, environment. with variable rates of cofinancing as per objective. The highest rates would be 33 – Rural development policy offers designed to encourage expenditure on the considerable potential. The current particular environmental area. guidelines that focus on selected topics are lacking in ambition and coherence.

Mr Jean BIZET Mr Jean-Paul EMORINE Ms. Bernadette BOURZAI Ms. Odette HERVIAUX Senator (Manche – UMP) Senator (Saône-et-Loire – Senator (Corrèze – SOC) Senator (Morbihan – SOC) UMP) Chairperson of the committee Chairperson of the committee Secretary of the committee Vice-Chairperson of the for European Affairs for the Economy, Sustainable for European Affairs committee for the Economy, Development and Spatial Sustainable Development Planning and Spatial Planning

This document – in English, French and German versions – and report n° 102 (2010-2011) – only in French version – are available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.senat.fr/europe/rap.html

The report may also be ordered at the “Espace Librairie” (Bookshop corner) of the Senate:

Tel: + 33 1.42.34.21.21 – E-mail: [email protected] - Address: 20, rue de Vaugirard - 75291 Paris Cedex 06

Sénat – 15, rue de Vaugirard - 75291 Paris Cedex 06 - www.senat.fr