1. The CAP towards 2020 Legal proposals
Selected slides from different presentations by
DG Agriculture and Rural Development
European Commission
Selected slides from different presentations by DG AGRI

2. Where are we with the CAP reform process?
12 April – 11 June 2010
Public debate (EU citizens and organisations)
19-20 July 2010
Public conference
18 November 2010
Commission Communication ‘The CAP towards 2020’
23 November 2010 – 25 January 2011
Consultation on Impact assessment (stakeholders)
29 June 2011
Commission proposals on the EU budget
12 October 2011
Commission legal proposals on the CAP
The legal proposals are accompanied by an impact assessment that evaluates alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy on the basis of extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis
Timetable of the CAP reform.
Important to understand that now there is co-decision on CAP reform.
End of the negotiation will depend on Parliament & Council discussions.
Debate in the European Parliament and the Council
Approval of Regulations and implementing acts

3. How will the CAP be financed?
Commission proposals on Multi-Annual Financial Framework for to maintain CAP spending at 2013 levels in nominal terms
in billion EUR
Current prices
- Pillar I - Direct payments and market-related expenditure
317.2
- Pillar II - Rural development
101.2
Total Pillar I and II
418.4
- Food safety
2.5
- Most deprived persons
2.8
- Reserve for crises in the agricultural sector
3.9
- European Globalisation Fund
Up to 2.8
- Research and innovation on food security, the bio-economy and sustainable agriculture
5.1
Total additional amounts
Up to 17.1
Total proposed amounts for the period
Up to 435.5
Budget for the next CAP should be maintained compared to the current CAP (appears in a separate commission proposal).
Source: Commission Communication ‘A budget for Europe 2020’ – COM(2011) 500 final, part II.

4. The path of CAP expenditure 1980-2020 (in current prices)
It is important to figure out that an important objective for the EU has been to make the CAP more « WTO compatible ».
The trend in recent CAP reforms show an increasing decoupling of the support from the production.
The coupling has been substituted with direct payments. Greening the direct payment helps to legitimate the CAP towards the WTO partners.
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Notes:
2011 = Budget; 2012 = Draft Budget;
2013 = EAGF subceiling for direct payments and market-related expenditure + pillar 2 in commitments.
Rural development for 2013 includes UK voluntary modulation and Article 136 “unspent amounts”. As these cease to exist end 2013, the corresponding amounts are put back to direct aids as from 2014.

5. … and how will the CAP address them?
Commission Communication ‘The CAP towards 2020’
Legal proposals
Challenges
Policy objectives
Reform objectives
Europe 2020
Viable food production
Economic
Enhanced
competitiveness
Sustainable management of natural resources and climate action
Environmental
Improved
sustainability
Balanced territorial development
Territorial
Greater
effectiveness
This gives an overview of the overall objectives mentioned in:
- the 2010 communication,
- the 2011 legal proposals.
Simplification

6. What CAP instruments to meet the reform objectives?
Enhanced
competitiveness
Improved
sustainability
Greater
effectiveness
Improved economic tools to address market developments
Crises reserve / Risk management toolkit
Improved position of farmers in the food supply chain
Research, innovation and knowledge transfer and an improved Farm Advisory System
New ‘green’ payment in Pillar I
Enhanced cross compliance
Two environmental priorities for rural development
Research, innovation and knowledge transfer and an improved Farm Advisory System
Redesign of direct payments
Common strategic framework for EU funds
Redistribution of direct payments across and within Member States
Allocation of rural development envelopes
Simplification of the policy
This details the different tools to meet the different selected objectives.
Water protection is mainly concerned by the middle column “improved sustainability”
Pillar I
Pillar II
Flexibility

7. New design of direct payments (2)
Degressivity and Capping
(all layers except Green Payment)
Coupled support
Natural constraint support
Wide range of sectors
Up to 5% or 10% of DP envelope, to be decided by MS
For areas with natural constraints
Up to 5% of the DP envelope
Small Farmer Scheme
Simplification of claims and controls
Lump sum payment to be determined by MS under conditions
Entrance in 2014
Up to 10% of the DP envelope
Young Farmer Scheme
Up to 2% of DP envelope
< 40 years
For 5 years
Commencing activity
Streamlined – Climate change
Cross compliance
‘Green’ Payment
Crop diversification
Permanent grassland
Ecological focus area
30% of the DP envelope
Basic Payment Scheme
Important aspects for water protection are:
Green payments will condition 30% of the direct payments. The green measures are potentially relevant for water protection.
A simplified scheme is considered for small farmers (the ambition on water protection could be an issue)
Cross compliance is « streamlined ». This concerns water protection (next slides)
National or regional flat rate per eligible hectare
Regions and criteria to be chosen by MS
New entitlements in 2014
Definition of agricultural activity
Definition of active farmer OR

8. The issues of water and pesticides are specifically addressed
Cross compliance
The issues of water and pesticides are specifically addressed
Water
Proposal:
The Water Framework Directive will be considered being part of CC when implemented by all MSs and obligations directly applicable to farmers are identified. Delegated power to the Commission to change the Annex.
The introduction of the WFD into the scope of CC is confirmed
Conditions to add the the WFD to cross compliance
However the timing will depend of its proper implementation on the ground

9. The issues of water and pesticides are specifically addressed
Cross compliance
The issues of water and pesticides are specifically addressed
Water
Proposal:
In the meantime, status quo for CC:
The repealed Groundwater Directive is replaced by a GAEC standard to keep the status quo from 2013.
The Nitrates Directive is kept
The 2 current GAEC standards on use of water and buffer strips are kept
The SMR provisions on groundwater are maintained through a new GAEC.
The 2 existing GAEC on water protection are maintained.
The water issue continue being addressed unchanged until the introduction of the WFD

10. The issues of water and pesticides are specifically addressed
Cross compliance
The issues of water and pesticides are specifically addressed
Water
Proposal:
However the Water Framework Directive is included in the scope of the Farm Advisory System to help the start up phase of its implementation by farmers
Until full implementation, the onus is put on advice rather than on sanctions
WFD is added to the scope of FAS.

11. «Green» Payment (payment for agricultural practises beneficial for the climate and the environment)
On top of Basic Payment Scheme (BPS)
Compulsory for MS and for farmers if they opt for BPS
Additional per hectare payment to fulfil 3 measures depending on the land use on the farm
Crop diversification on arable land: minimum 3 crops (max 70% and min 5%)
Parcels of permanent grassland shall be maintained at farm level
7% of arable land and permanent crops should be devoted to ecological focus area (fallow land, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips, etc.)
Just mention the 3 measures in discussion.
They can all potentially be relevant for water protection but the ambition of the requirements is an issue.
Implementing rules will bring more precisions. 11 11

12. Rural development in a new framework
Europe 2020 strategy
Common Strategic Framework (CSF)
– covering the EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund and EMFF, and reflecting EU2020 through common
thematic objectives to be addressed by key actions for each of the funds
Partnership Contract
– national document outlining the intended use of the funds in the pursuit of EU2020 objectives
Rural development
policy: EAFRD
Other CSF funds
(ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund the EMFF)
Innovation, Environment and Climate Change as cross-cutting themes
Promoting social
inclusion,
poverty reduction
and economic
development
in rural areas
Enhancing
competitiveness
of all types of
agriculture
and farm viability
Promoting
food chain
organisation
and risk
management
in agriculture
Restoring,
preserving and
enhancing
ecosystems
dependent on
agriculture and
forestry
Promoting resource
efficiency and
supporting the shift
towards a low carbon
and climate resilient
economy in
agriculture, food
and forestry sectors
Fostering
knowledge
transfer and
Innovation in
agriculture,
forestry and
rural areas
The different axis are suppressed and we will have a priority based approach.
Mainly 2 priorities will be relevant to water protection:
Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems « dependent » on agriculture and forestry
Promoting resource efficiency
The same rules as today might apply: voluntary approach with mandatory cofinancing.
Priorities
Rural Development Programme(s) 12 12

13. Some relevant measures
Agri-environment-climate
Organic farming
Natura 2000, Water Framework Directive Payments
Forest-environmental and climate services and forest conservation
Mainly unchanged.
Organic farming will be considered separatly.

14. WFD (and Natura) payments
Compensation per hectare for specific requirements:
introduced by WFD;
in accordance with river basin management plans;
going beyond level of legal protection existing when WFD was adopted;
going beyond measures required to implement other EU water protection legislation;
going beyond cross-compliance;
going beyond “green operations” of direct payments;
imposing major changes in land use and / or major restrictions in farming practice, leading to significant loss of income
Provisions of article 38 would be maintained in a new article 31.

15. An overarching objective: Simplification
Examples
Policy instruments
A simple and specific scheme for small farmers (around 30% of beneficiaries)
Greening as simple as possible, includes only measures that have an environmental impact AND are manageable / controllable without major extra cost;
Payments
Only one Paying Agency for all CAP measures in a MS/Region
A range of approaches to reimbursing payments by beneficiaries on the basis of simplified costs (II Pillar);
Controls
MS with properly functioning control systems and low error rates may be authorised to reduce the number of controls
Cross-compliance: reduction and better streamlining of the obligations (13 SMRs instead of 18 and 8 GAEC instead of 15), follow-up checks to minor infringements repealed; farmers using certification systems less likely to be controlled.
Simplification is an important objective in the CAP reform.
The challenge is that the ambition on environmental protection is not lowered. 15