2 Strategic Direction of the CAP |
6. The CAP's original purpose was to boost domestic
production through market price support. As production rose the
cost of the CAP increased and excess agricultural goods had to
be stored at public expense. In 1992 CAP payments were decoupled
from production and intervention prices for key agricultural commodities
were reduced. Further reforms in 2000 and 2003 maintained the
momentum away from payment for production and introduced environmental
and animal welfare requirements for receipt of the new Single
Farm Payment. In
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 report we noted
the evidence supporting the Commission's focus on sustainability
and the environmental performance of agriculture.
We concluded that "sustainable management of the EU's natural
resources, biodiversity and landscapes" should be the CAP's
third objective behind enhancing the EU's capacity to produce
safe and high-quality food and enhancing the competitiveness and
viability of the EU agricultural sector.
The Government response to that report concurred that "the
CAP has a vital role in supporting the provision of environmental
7. Both farming and environmental organisations
have criticised the Commission's proposals. However, there is
a general consensus that there is a benefit in improving environmental
outcomes and that within the EU, payments under the CAP should
reflect that goal.
For example, the Wildlife Trusts, while describing the proposals
as "unambitious", and "not ideal", did welcome
the principle of a 'greener' CAP.
Peter Kendall, President of the National Farmers Union (NFU),
described the proposals as "negative measures", rather
than the "ones that are able to deliver winwins, where
we can become more productive and produce more food as well as
protect the environment".
The National Trust (NT), which has a direct interest in 200,000
ha of farmland across the UK, welcomed the Commission's "ambition
to 'green' the CAP", but believed that the proposals fall
short of their aim.
The Trust had hoped "to see proposals that delivered much
more for natural resources underpinning the farmed environment,
preparing us for an uncertain future of climate and food insecurity".
Professor Charles Godfray, Chair of the Lead Expert Group of the
Foresight Food and Farming Project, gave a general welcome to
'greening' but was concerned that the Commission had not recognised
the wider policy environment that the Foresight project identified.
He expressed concerns about "the way they are implementing
the greening, by what they have proposed for Pillar 1, is rather
formulaic or algorithmic, rather than setting incentives for the
production of public goods".
8. Much of the evidence we received was necessarily
tentative in its assessment of the Commission's proposals due
to the lack of detail currently available about how the measures
would work in practice. We
support the Commission's broad goal that CAP payments be a method
for improving environmental outcomes across Europe but we note
that the lack of detail available about the Commission's specific
proposals makes it difficult to make precise assessments of their
potential impact and value.
9. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
(RSPB) described the 'greening' proposals as a missed opportunity
to support European farming becoming more environmentally and
Gareth Morgan, Director of Agricultural Policy at the RSPB described
the Commission's "primary" aim to be "how you
legitimise expenditure of 300 billion over the next seven
view was shared by several witnesses, including the Country Land
and Business Association (CLA), which noted that Commissioner
Ciolos had been explicit about the need to legitimise CAP payments
in the eyes of the public.
The CAP provides support to some 14 million agricultural holdings
and affects nearly 50% of the EU's land area. It is the EU's single
largest item of expenditure, at a cost of around 57 billion
in 2010. The Commission
should wish to assure the general public that CAP payments are
justified and legitimate. However, the Commission's primary consideration
when designing revisions to the CAP should be the delivery of
the desired agricultural, environmental, economic and social outcomes.
The CAP's legitimacy in the eyes of the public will come from
delivering those outcomes and securing value for money. We
are concerned that the Commission is pursuing a greening agenda
as a way to justify the continuation of direct payments, rather
than as a means to deliver genuine environmental improvements
across the European Union.
10. The Commission aims to improve the baseline
level of environmental protection across all Member States by
making farmers across the EU subject to largely the same requirements
to qualify for a significant proportion of direct payments. Currently
direct payments are conditional on farmers meeting the cross-compliance
criteria: Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) and Good Agricultural
and Environmental Condition (GAEC), which includes environmental
elements. The Commission
proposes simplifying cross-compliance requirements by reducing
the number of SMRs from 18 to 13 and GAECs from 15 to 8.
11. Despite the universality of cross-compliance
requirements, Member States vary in how they implement and enforce
According to the Institute of European Environmental Policy (IEEP),
introducing additional mandatory 'greening' measures into Pillar
1 provided a "stronger means of ensuring a basic level of
environmental management" across the whole of the EU.
The CLA considered that, depending on their implementation, the
'greening' measures had the potential to provide environmental
improvements in those Member States with rudimentary agri-environmental
schemes or less demanding cross-compliance.
12. The UK is considered to be one of the leading
Member States in terms of providing environmental improvements
through the CAP, particularly through Entry Level Stewardship
and Higher Level Stewardship agri-environment schemes.
The Secretary of State told us that the Commission recognised
that the "UK is out there more or less in a league of its
own, particularly with higher level stewardship schemes, which
make very strong demands on farmers to address very real needs
The CLA noted that if the 'greening' measures were intended to
bring all Member States' basic farmland environmental management
up to the standards of the best in Europe, they were unlikely
to lead to any noticeable environmental enhancement in this country.
13. Critics of the Commission' uniform, one-size-fits
all approach emphasised the diversity of agricultural and environmental
conditions across the EU.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
doubted that the 'greening' measures would deliver additional
environmental benefits for the EU because "in attempting
to make them applicable across all Member States, they are far
too basic in their approach".
The majority of Member States are concerned that the Commission's
proposed rigid, one-size-fits-all approach appeared "to deliver
more red tape than actual environmental benefit".
The Secretary of State did not think that Member States would
reach agreement on the Commission's "sub-optimal" and
"prescriptive" one-size-fits all approach.
14. Professor Benton, an expert in agri-environment
scheme policy and the UK's Global Food Security Champion, while
accepting the need for a "uniform framework", explained
that implementation of the Regulations should allow for sufficient
tailoring to local circumstances.
He stated that:
...what is the best strategy for one landscape, with
its geographical setting and the mix of farm enterprises, may
not be the best strategy for another area. The optimal management
strategy will vary with landscape context, leading for a necessity
for local tailoring of specificities of schemes to make maximum
He added that "even in the UK, how you would
manage a Cornish landscape is very different from how you would
manage a Norfolk landscape".
15. Natural England, the Government's statutory
advisor on the natural environment agreed that there was benefit
in Pillar 1 providing a degree of uniformity to ensure a 'level
playing field' across the EU, but emphasised that the best results
required "locally specific and locally tailored solutions".
Mr Morgan considered it "a bit unrealistic" to expect
a Common Agricultural Policy to be tailored to the needs and circumstances
of every region across the EU; he therefore considered that "we
have to have some limits to what our expectation of the greening
process through Pillar 1 can be".
The IEEP concluded that by "proposing a set of generally
applicable, simple, annual payments" the Commission had placed
greater value on a "common approach applied uniformly in
all Member States over flexibility to address the diverse conditions
in the EU-27".
We find it telling that the Institute concluded
that "clearly, if only the UK situation needed to be considered,
then the choices made would have been quite different".
16. Much of our evidence emphasised that environmental
outcomes are best delivered by tailored and locally specific policies.
There are also benefits in having sufficient uniformity in the
general approach, not least to simplify the administration and
protect the level playing field for farmers across the EU.
We recognise the need for
a common policy to regulate aspects of the single European market,
however, for policy areas such as the environment and rural development
any policy must take account of the local circumstances: a one-size-fits-all
approach will fail to deliver the desired outcomes.
17. In response to the Commission's overly prescriptive
one-size fits all 'greening' proposals several Member States have
together developed alternative proposals that would give greater
flexibility and enable each country to implement measures better
targeted to their own farming systems and environmental circumstances.
The Commission should grasp the opportunity to enable Member
States to take sensible decisions about how measures can be tailored
to local environmental circumstances and needs.
We recommend that Defra continue to press the Commission to develop
a less rigid approach to 'greening' that would enable individual
Member States the flexibility to decide measures that work best
in their local environment.
18. Defra supported our conclusion in The
Outcome of the independent Farming Regulation Task Force report
that, as a general principle, regulation should be on the basis
of outcomes rather than simple compliance with processes.
Rather than identifying desired outcomes, the Commission has taken
an inflexible approach to 'greening' that would impose a single
set of regulatory criteria across the range of farm habitats and
methods found across the EU.
The Commission is more likely to find success if it focuses on
setting the objectives of 'greening' and allows Member States
the flexibility to design measures that work best in their local
environment. Such an approach is not a diminution of ''greening''
but rather enhances the prospects of achieving appropriate environmental
outcomes. There is a precedent for such an approach. Within the
proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Commission
has allowed for a much greater degree of regional control over
fishing management measures, without diluting the important conservation
and single market objectives of the common approach. In our report
on EU proposals for Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy we
concluded that "a more effective system of European fisheries
governance could be achieved if high-level objectives only are
set centrally by the European institutions while day-to-day decisions
are delegated to regional groupings of Member States".
We consider that the Commission should consider a similar approach
in relation to 'greening'.
19. We recommend that Defra
make the argument to the Commission that it should set the high-level
objectives for a greener CAP and allow Member States the flexibility
to determine how best to achieve those objectives. Such delegation
has been proposed within the reform proposals for the Common Fisheries
Policy and we recommend that Commissioner Ciolos consider how
such an approach could be applied to the Common Agricultural Policy.
We accept that complete decentralisation of these policy areas
may be impossible to achieve within this round of CAP reform but
we urge the Government to make the case that greater flexibility
and increasing local decision-making should be the strategic direction
of the CAP.
20. The CAP is currently complex, burdensome
and expensive to administer and therefore the Commission has identified
simplification as an objective for this round of CAP reform. Despite
the Commission's commitment to simplification, our evidence suggests
that the 'greening' proposals will create additional bureaucracy
and complexity for farmers and paying agencies.
The UK Co-ordinating Body for the Common Agricultural Policy described
the proposals as representing "considerable additional administrative
complexity compared to the current regime".
According to Defra, that additional administrative complexity
risks increasing the error rates in payments, which could lead
to financial hardship for farmers and financial penalties for
the Member State.
The RSPB supported reducing unnecessary burdens but noted that
a degree of complexity would be necessary to achieve the policy's
Similarly, the IEEP argued that delivering environmental benefits
involves some administrative burden.
21. The farming organisations believed that the
proposals would add complexity or administrative burden. For example
the crop diversification measure may require the reintroduction
of crop codes to differentiate between different crop types, as
well as requiring additional mapping.
The EFA measure may also require additional mapping to calculate
the eligible area.
The NFU predicted that 'greening' proposals may lead to a proliferation
of artificial land swap agreements which would result in additional
administration by the Rural Payments Agency.
The CAAV considered that the proposals "add new levels of
complexity for both claimants and payment agencies and, as drafted,
risk undermining the level of agri-environment commitment in the
22. We consider it highly improbable
that the Commission's proposals will deliver a simpler CAP. We
recommend that Defra ensure that, as the negotiations continue,
the Commission does not lose sight of the absolute need for a
system of CAP payments that can be implemented and audited efficiently.
The Commission must balance the often conflicting pressures of
designing a policy that will deliver positive environmental outcomes
with the need for a policy that can actually be implemented and
delivered for a reasonable cost.
23. In The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013
we discussed the costs of administering Single Farm Payments in
the UK. We concluded that Defra should "resist the imposition
of policies that would create undue bureaucracy and burden for
farmers or the government payment agencies".
The Rural Payment Agency has acknowledged the challenges
of the CAP reform.
Its five-year plan states that "...there are aspects
of the currently proposed scheme which are likely to entail a
great deal of complexity for RPA, regardless of how our new systems
and business models are constructed".
Those challenges come at a time of reducing funding for
the agency. The
capability and capacity of the Rural Payments Agency will be critical
to the successful implementation of the reformed CAP. Defra must
ensure that the agency has the financial resources and expertise
to deliver the new regime.
24. There is a widely held view in UK agriculture
that the Government gold plates European legislation. For example,
in our Outcome of the Farming Regulation Task Force inquiry
the CLA said:
Many pieces of EU law are minimum requirements, requesting
the Member State to enforce implementing Regulations. It is up
to the Member State to determine how much, or how little, to transpose.
What has happened with Defra and its agencies is a policy of over-compliance
when it is often the case this was never originally intended.
25. The NFU was concerned that Defra was under
pressure from the environmental bodies to gold plate the 'greening'
measures in order to enhance their environmental benefits".
It argued that "the 'greening' measures put forward at an
EU level should be implemented evenly across the EU. There should
be no opportunity for Member States to gold plate the measures
or add in requirements beyond those stipulated at EU level".
The Secretary of State told us that the Government was "dedicated
to prising gold plating off wherever we see it" and was "not
about to install new gold plating".
the form of the final mandatory 'greening' measures, Defra must
not gold plate 'greening' through imposing more demanding measures
on UK farmers than apply elsewhere.
Food Security and food production
26. In The Common Agricultural Policy after
2013 we reiterated our view that the EU will, through the
reformed CAP, have a role in meeting future global food supply
challenges. We recommended
that "any 'greening' of the CAP should be directed at activities
that promote sustainability alongside competitiveness".
Professor Benton summarised the challenge:
... how do we increase food production whilst at
the same time decreasing the rate at which we have been impacting
on the environment, or even mitigate against that and make it
better? Clearly, with the CAP, we need to have both.
27. Professor Godfray, Chair of the Lead Expert
Group of the Foresight Food and Farming Project, described graphically
the challenges to global food security and the potential consequences
if those challenges were not met.
He agreed with our analysis that the CAP should not directly increase
food production but should "enable our farming sector to
respond to price signals".
He told us:
A leitmotif running throughout the Foresight
Report was the need for sustainable intensification, so we will
almost certainly have to produce more food from the same amount
of land or, conceivably, less land. That does mean, as you say,
producing more food, but doing it in a way that has less imprint
on the environment. We should be as concerned about kilograms
or calories of human food per unit of greenhouse gas emitted to
the atmosphere as we are about yield per acre.
28. The balancing point between food production
and environmental protection is naturally a concern for both farming
organisations and environmental organisations. Mr Morgan argued
that the reforms would have "serious problems" if food
security and environmental quality were considered to be in opposition.
He did not think that the Commission had "approached this
reform from any particular food security perspective".
While our witnesses acknowledged the importance of food security,
the farming organisations did not consider the proposals addressed
the issue sufficiently or identified the desired outcomes.
According to the NFU the EFA measure would remove 5.74 million
hectares of land from food and energy productionequating
to 31 million tonnes of wheat production.
The CLA added that that removal of productive land would not only
reduce EU food output but also increase food imports from countries
"where we have no idea what the environmental cost would
29. The Commission's Impact Assessment calculated
that on average 2.7% of the current EU eligible area would be
likely to count as part of the EFA and that figure would increase
were landscape features to be included.
The IEEP considered farmers likely to allocate the least productive
land to be used for the EFA first so that the percentage of productive
land taken out of production by the measure will be well below
the measure would in their view have an impact on production levels,
particularly in areas of the EU dedicated to arable farming.
30. Some, however, argued that the measures would
have little or no detrimental impact on food security.
Chris Gerrard, Director of Living Landscapes for the Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust said that in
the context of food security the amount of land in production
in Europe and the UK was less of an issue than the "distribution
of food, the production of food, minimisation of waste and innovation
in food production".
31. The principal purpose of
the CAP is to support food production and, in the long term, the
goal for the CAP must be delivering sustainable food production.
In developing these proposals the Commission appears not to have
considered food security and how 'greening' will interact with
efficient farm production. In our view the Commission has missed
the opportunity to encourage sustainable intensification of food
32. There is substantial evidence that multiannual,
voluntary and targeted Pillar 2-type schemes deliver better environmental
outcomes then mandatory, generalised, non-contractual, annual
actions under Pillar 1.
For example, Defra concluded that the 'greening' proposals would
"fall short of delivering the level of environmental outcomes
achieved by England's current Entry Level Stewardship scheme which
delivers a basic level of environmental outcomes across 70% of
England's agricultural area".
Professor Godfray advocated greater "modularity" by
moving from the "formulaic" Pillar 1 approach to schemes
in Pillar 2 that enabled the Government to use a more innovative
approach to securing public benefits while providing farmers with
an income. The IEEP
noted that the limited funding available through Pillar 2 and
the reluctance of Member States to increase levels of co-financing
meant that there were limits to what could be achieved through
Pillar 2 schemes.
Mr Morgan, argued that as the Treasury would resist increasing
the money allocated to agri-environment schemes, 'greening' had
the potential for reducing the funding pressure on Pillar 2.
The Wildlife Trusts argued for a combination of high quality optional
agri-environment schemes under Pillar 2 underpinned by mandatory
environmental measures under Pillar 1.
33. In England, a significant proportion of the
current Pillar 2 budget is funded through modulation. Modulation
is the transfer of a percentage of each farmer's direct payment
to the Pillar 2 budget. England uses a higher modulation rate
(19%) than most EU countries (10%), or even the devolved administrations
(11%-14%), in part because the UK currently receives the lowest
Pillar 2 allocation of all Member States. In the Committee's previous
CAP inquiry, farming groups said this created unfair competition
and advocated either equal rates or no modulation at all. However,
Defra argued that higher rates of modulation in England were needed
to fund environmental stewardship schemes.
34. In The Common Agricultural Policy after
2013 we found that the variation in modulation rates across
the EU made the distribution of funding between Member States
more complex and less objective. Moreover, we believed that the
current system was not in the interests of fair competition for
UK producers within the EU market. We recommended that:
Defra should argue strongly for a more equitable
distribution of Pillar 2 funding. If modulation is to continue,
the rate at which payments are reduced should be common across
the EU. Defra should ensure that it can meet its ambitions for
delivery of agri-environment schemes from its Pillar 2 budget
without recourse to higher modulation rates in England than apply
in the rest of the UK, or in Europe.
In response to our report the Government stated that:
The UK will seek distribution of funds based on clear,
objective criteria, with Pillar 2 forming a greater share of a
smaller CAP budget. Given the widely varying nature of farming
and rural issues across the EU and within Member States, the UK
believes that Member States should continue to be given the flexibility
to allocate CAP funding in a way that best suits the requirements
of their own regions and farming structures, providing it is consistent
with the wider objectives of the CAP.
35. The Commission proposes that Member States
will have the possibility of transferring up to 10% of their national
envelope for Direct Payments (1st Pillar) to their Rural Development
envelope; and the Member States that get less than 90% of the
EU average for direct payments now may transfer up to 5% of their
Rural Development funds to their 1st Pillar national envelope.
Defra's written evidence to this inquiry makes it clear that
they would like to continue modulation of direct payments under
the new CAP:
The Commission proposals now provide for up to 10%
transfer from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 alongside greening. Flexibility
to move resources between pillars is potentially the most flexible
mechanism available to Member States to maximise the environmental
outcomes from the CAP and the one delivering both the most additionality
and the least disruption to existing agreements.
Despite its preference for Pillar 2 schemes, the
department did not commit to how the Treasury would respond to
any increase in the co-financing commitment that Pillar 2 relies
36. The transfer of funds from Pillar 1 direct
payments to Pillar 2 voluntary schemes is opposed by the farming
unions, who argue that it puts farmers at a competitive disadvantage
relative to farmers elsewhere in Europe who enjoy higher direct
payment rates as a result of their country's lower modulation
NFU were concerned that the Treasury would see the proposals as
an opportunity to reduce national co-financing requirements if
actions currently financed through the Pillar 2 were made compulsory
in Pillar 1. Peter Kendall, President of the NFU, told us that
as the Treasury would resist the additional co-financing burden
of moving money from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2, the Government might
be considering moving measures from Pillar 2 to Pillar 1. He described
such an approach would have "phenomenal" implications
for the Government's regulatory work.
37. The competitiveness of UK
farmers will be reduced if they are exposed to higher modulation
rates than their European counterparts. We therefore recommend
that Defra does not set modulation rates higher than other Member
States that receive similar single farm payment rates.
38. We conclude that it is important
that the two Pillars work together rather than at cross purposes
to one another. However, increasing the burden on Pillar 2 is
unlikely to be politically achievable, not least because of additional
co-financing that would be required.
39. Most of the evidence we received argued that
the three 'greening' measures were likely to have a negative impact
on farm competitiveness and profitability.
The NFU noted that the proposals would not help farmers produce
for the market and reversed previous reforms' focus on competitiveness.
Mr Kendall questioned whether, given the current state of the
European economy, it was appropriate for the Commission to make
proposals that would lead to production being exported outside
the EU. The IEEP, however, argued that as the 'greening' measures
would create a level playing field across all Member States and
that UK agricultural competitiveness would be enhanced due to
its record of taking a proactive approach to environmental issues.
The environmental organisations questioned the extent to which,
in the long term, 'greening' would have a negative impact on competitiveness.
They highlighted evidence that greener agriculture had economic
benefits across rural communities.
40. Of the three 'greening' proposals the EFA
measure was identified as having the greatest potential impact
on farm competitiveness due to the removal of productive land.
An analysis by the Agricultural and Horticultural Development
Board (AHDB) found that the EFA measures alone would reduce the
gross crop margin by between £38 and £48 per hectare.
 The AHDB
concluded that "The legislative measures, if implemented
in the way they are currently set out, would seem to potentially
have a large negative impact on UK combinable cropping farm-level
profitability and production decisions".
A report from the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development (ICTSD) concluded that the 'greening' proposals would
"increase the costs of farming in the EU either directly
or indirectly [...] reduce supply and increase market prices".
The ICTSD did conclude, however, that in the longer-term
more sustainable agricultural practices may lead to higher yields.
41. The Commission acknowledges that its proposed
measures will have an impact on farm competitiveness and that
the impact will vary depending on the type of farm. For example
highly specialised cropping farms are expected to be most affected
by diversification and livestock farms are more likely to be affected
by the permanent pasture requirement.
The Commission also estimates wider impacts on commodity prices
through changes in crop production due to the crop diversification
and EFA requirements. The 'greening' measures will also reduce
farm incomes per agricultural worker.
42. We conclude that the 'greening'
proposals will have a significant impact on the competitiveness
of UK farmers. We urge Defra to continue to press the Commission
to enable farmers to opt out of prescriptive mandatory measures
in favour of those schemes that deliver environmental outcomes
and do not diminish competitiveness.
43. The recitals of the draft Regulation on direct
payments emphasises the mandatory nature of 'greening' practices.
The Regulation goes on to state that "Non-respect of the
'greening' component should lead to penalties". However,
as the CAAV noted that, "neither the draft of the direct
payments Regulation nor that of the finance Regulation gives any
clue as to the penalty regime for breaching greening".
The RSPB argued that the "EU's long-term
food security depends on maintaining the productive capacity of
agricultural land. 'Greening' the CAP is therefore not optional:
it is a necessity".
They therefore expressed a strong preference for farmers to receive
a severe penalty for not meeting the greening requirements:
Sanctions for farmers and land managers who fail
to carry out Pillar 1 greening measures must be severe enough
to act as genuine deterrent. This may mean reductions exceeding
the 30% greening payment itself may be required.
44. The NFU rejected the imposition of additional
penalties if a farmer chooses to opt out of "greening".
One of the NFU's principles for the future greening payments was
that "a farmer who chooses to opt out of "greening"
would forego the aid associated with the greening option but would
face no additional penalty or sanction on their basic direct aid".
Mr Kendall told us that the NFU believed "environmental measures
need to be targeted, farmers need to select what is best for their
farms, and, much better, to be something you buy into rather than
something you are forced into to get the right outcomes".
The Commission is reported to be hardening its line on penalties
for 'intentional irregularities', including a maximum penalty
of as much as 200% of a farmer's greening component being deducted.
45. We recommend that farmers
that do not carry out 'greening' activities should not receive
the 'greening' top-up payment but should not be subject to additional
penalties. We recommend that, if a farmer chooses not to carry
out 'greening', that that farmer's share of the Pillar 1 'greening'
fund should able to be transferred to Pillar 2. Any Pillar 1 funding
transferred to Pillar 2 under this approach would not be subject
to the co-financing requirements.
15 See The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013
for fuller description of the origin and evolution of the
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, paras 44-46 Back
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, paras 34-43 Back
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Fifth Special Report
of Session 2010-12, The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013:
Government response to the Committee's Fifth Report of session
2010-12, HC 1356 Back
Ev 98, 95, 85, 76, 69, 57, Q 5 [Mr Cotterell] Back
Ev 85; Q 96 [Mr Wilkinson] Back
Q 2 [Mr Kendall] Back
Ev w34 Back
Ev w34 Back
Q 118 Back
Ev 76 Back
Q 96 [Mr Morgan] Back
Q 3, Ev 56, Ev w9, w32 Back
The European Commission has proposed the overall CAP budget rise
to 60.3 billion for the next financial year. "Commission
proposes modest rise for CAP budget next year" Agra Europe,
1 May 2012 Back
Statutory Management Requirements (SMR), are embedded in EU Directives,
such as those on nitrates and habitats. The precise standards
required for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)
are set by Member States and relate, for example, to water protection,
soil management and landscape. Back
The SMRs relating to control of bluetongue, foot and mouth and
swine vesicular disease have been deleted. The GAECs relating
to retaining permanent pasture and preventing the encroachment
of vegetation have been removed- however these activities will
still be required under the greening and eligibility provisions
respectively. The optional GAECs on using appropriate machinery,
retaining habitats and crop rotation have been dropped. New GAECs
relating to maintaining wetlands and carbon rich soils have been
added. Moreover, the Commission intends to incorporate additional
rules stemming from the Water Framework Directive and the Sustainable
Use of Pesticides Directive once these Directives have been implemented
in all Member States Back
Ev w52 Back
Ev w52 Back
Ev 57 Back
Ev w52 Back
Q 196 Back
Ev 57 Back
Ev 50, Ev w11; "CAP subsidies must place greater focus on
biodiversity, urge MEPs" Agra Europe, 1 May 2012 Back
Ev 99 Back
HC Deb, 7 November 2011, col 4WS Back
Qq 176, 200 Back
Ev 93,Q 39 Back
Ev 91, see Q 57 Back
Q 40 Back
Q 94 Back
Q 97; See Q 105 Back
Ev w52 Back
See Q 48 Back
"Alternative to EU's greening measures" Farmers Guardian,
May 4 2012; XXX Back
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Ninth Special Report
of Session 2010-12, The Outcome of the Independent Farming
Regulation Task Force: Government Response to the Committee's
Tenth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1669; See Q 220 Back
"European court slams 'unfocused' Commission plans for CAP
reform" Agra Europe, 24 April 2012 Back
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Twelfth Report
of Session 2010-12, EU proposals for Reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy, HC 1563-I, para 23 Back
Ev 58, 68, 97, 101; Ev w35; Q 193; "CAP complication a necessary
evil - Fischler" Agra Europe, 28 February 2012; "European
court slams 'unfocused' Commission plans for CAP reform"
Agra Europe, 24 April 2012; See Qq 83ff Back
Ev w 5 Back
Ev 101 Back
Ev 83 Back
Ev w 54 Back
Ev w 12; Ev 101. The scheme that preceded the Single Payment Scheme
had 135 crop codes. Defra's initial analysis suggests that approximately
71,000 claims contain at least some arable land and might have
to use additional land use codes. Back
Ev 101 Back
Ev 68; Q 14 [Mr Kendall] Back
Ev w 11 Back
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, paras 223-224 Back
HC 1028-i, Qq 28ff, 42ff Back
Rural Payments Agency Five Year Plan 2012-2017, p 8 Back
Rural Payments Agency Five Year Plan 2012-2017, p 21; The RPA's
Business as Usual Funding allocations are:
|FY 2012/13 (£m)
||FY 2013/14 (£m)
||FY 2014/15 (£m)
|Business as Usual
|Strategic Improvement Plan additional investment
EFRA Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2010-12, The Outcome of
the Independent Farming Regulation Task Force, HC 1266, Ev 49 Back
Ev 68 Back
Ev 70 Back
Q 187 Back
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, paras 34-39 Back
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, para 143 Back
Q 38 Back
QQ 118-119 Back
Q 120 Back
Q 120 Back
Q 96 [Mr Morgan]. See "Trade-offs needed for food security",
Farmers Weekly, 9 March 2012 Back
Q 96 [Mr Morgan] Back
Q3 [Mr Kendall, Mr Dunn] Back
Ev 71 Back
Ev 58 Back
Ev w53; See Impact Assessment: Common Agricultural Policy towards
2020, SEC(2011) 1153 final/2 Back
Ev w52ff, Ev 58 Back
Ev w 53 Back
Ev w 53 Back
Q 108 [Mr Gerrard]; See Q 43 Back
Ev w50; Q 10 [Mr Cotterell]; Qq 68-71 Back
Ev 99 Back
Q 134 Back
Ev w50 Back
Q 116 Back
Ev 87 Back
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, paras 125-135
The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, para 135 Back
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Fifth Special Report
of Session 2010-12 The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013:
Government response to the Committee's Fifth Report of session
2010-12, HC 1356, page 9 Back
Q 147 Back
"Unions unite against UK CAP cost cutting plans" Farmers
Guardian, 27 April 2012 Back
Q 31 Back
Ev 97 Back
Qq 4, 14 Back
Ev w54 Back
Qq 99-101 Back
Q 99 [Mr Morgan], Q 101 [Mr Wilkinson] Back
Ev 101 Back
Ev 67 Back
Ev 68 Back
EV 99 Back
Ev 67. The Commission's Impact Assessment shows that income per
worker in the pig and poultry industries could fall by 25%, and
in the dairy industry it could fall by nearly 6%. Back
Ev w11 Back
Ev 76 Back
Ev 84 Back
Ev 70 Back
Q 6 Back
"More flexible 'greening' measures with menu options gain
support" Agra Europe, 1 May 2012 Back