1. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development
Report to the Council on the implementation of the cross-compliance system
Aymeric Berling
European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development
April 2007

2. Overview : Cross Compliance in summary Background Political statements
Problems identified
Some figures
Proposals
Next steps

3. Cross compliance in summary:
Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs)
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)

4. SMRs: environment Nitrates Wild birds Sewage Sludge Habitats
Surface water and
Groundwater
Soil
Nature protection
Nitrates
Wild birds
Sewage Sludge
Habitats
Groundwater

5. SMRs: sanitary and veterinary legislation
Animal Id.
Plant health
Public health
Animal health and welfare
Animal identification
and registration
Hormone ban
Animal diseases
notification
Plant protection
products
General Food Law
Animal welfare

6. GAEC: 4 issues, 11 standards
Minimum level maintenance
Soil erosion
Soil organic matter
Soil structure
Livestock
stocking rates
Minimum
soil cover
Crops
rotations
Permanent
pasture
Appropriate
machinery use
Minimum land
management
Retention
landscape features
Arable stubble
management
Unwanted
vegetation
Retain
terraces
Olive groves

7. Background Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 :
« By 31 December 2007 at the latest, the Commission shall submit a report on the application of the system of cross-compliance accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals notably with the view of amending the list of statutory management requirements set out in Annex III. »

8. Background Cross-compliance has started in 2005
During the 2 first years of application a number of questions have been raised
In order to tackle these questions in due time the decision has been taken to present the report in early 2007 to the Council, under the German presidency

9. Political statements
The report contains a number of political statements, based on the EU legislative framework:
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004

10. Political statements Definition of cross compliance:
“Cross-compliance creates a link between
the full payment of support, and
compliance with certain rules relating to agricultural land and to agricultural production and activity in the areas of the environment, public, animal and plant health, animal welfare and good agricultural and environmental condition.”

11. Political statements Definition of cross compliance:
“This link is expressed in concrete terms in the possibility, if the rules are not respected, of full or partial reductions of certain EU agricultural payments. The reductions shall be based on the severity, the extent, the permanence, the repetition and the intentionality of the non-compliance.“

12. Political statements Objectives of cross compliance:
“The first objective is to contribute to the development of sustainable agriculture. This is achieved through the respect by the farmer of the rules relating to the relevant aspects of cross-compliance.”

13. Political statements Objectives of cross compliance:
“The second objective is to make the CAP more compatible with the expectations of society at large. There is now a growing body of opinion that agricultural payments should no longer be granted to farmers who fail to comply with basic rules in certain important areas of public policy.“

14. Political statements Objectives of cross compliance:
“Achieving these two objectives will help to ensure the CAP's future .“

15. Political statements Payments concerned by cross compliance:
All direct payments - decoupled or coupled - under the first pillar of the CAP (the payments listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) N° 1782/2003)

16. Political statements Payments concerned by cross compliance:
Eight measures under "Axis 2" of the second pillar of the CAP (listed in Council Regulation (EC) N°1698/2005)
Agri-environment payments;
Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas;
Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas;
Natura 2000 payments on agricultural land and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (the Water Framework Directive);
Animal welfare payments;
First afforestation of agricultural land;
Natura 2000 payments on forestry land;
Forest-environment payments.

17. Political statements Scope of cross compliance:
Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs)
They do not create new obligations to farmers since the legal texts existed previously
Most of them are Directives which implies a degree of variation in the implementation between Member states

18. Political statements Scope of cross compliance:
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) : standards
The concept and the obligations are not new to many farmers (good farming practices, etc.)
Member states have to define obligations at farm level, where appropriate, for all standards listed in the EU framework (Annex IV of Regulation No 1782/2003)

19. Political statements Scope of cross compliance:
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) : maintenance of the ratio of permanent pasture

20. Political statements
Given the discussion during the start up phase and the sensitivity of this topic, the Commission is willing to propose immediate solutions to the problems identified so far
There is however no question to water down the system
Every effort should be made to improve the acceptance of cross compliance, for the benefit of all

21. Political statements
Subsidiarity is an underlying principle to address the local risk and constraints and take into account the organisation in each Member state
However there is a need to ensure a level playing field for farmers, through a common legal framework
Striking the appropriate balance is one of the most important challenge of the system

22. Problems identified From the farmers view
From the national authorities view
From the Commission view

23. Problems identified from the farmer view
Volume and technical nature of the information
Obligations sometimes new
Feeling of “double sanction”
On-the-spot checks long and burdensome
No exemption of reduction for minor non-compliances

24. Problems identified from the national administrations view
Difficulties to inform farmers of their obligations
Difficulties to organise the control system (co-ordination of bodies, of controls, taking into account existing systems, reporting, etc)
Concept sometimes difficult to handle (what is an infringement, intentionality, etc)
Problems of interpretation of the EU legislation

25. Problems identified from the Commission view
Information given to farmer sometimes not concrete enough
Member States choice in the organisation of controls sometimes raising difficulties, in particular for the designation of the Competent Control Authority
Some obligations were not checked
Reduction matrices sometimes designed at a very low level

26. Some figures (2005, rounded)
5% of farmers receiving direct payments have been checked on-the-spot ( checks)
12% of these checked farmers have been applied a reduction (mostly for the I&R of animals and the GAEC)
68% of these applied reduction were at the minimum level of 1%

27. Proposals from the Commission
To tackle horizontal problems which can be solved at EU level
Keeping the right balance between a common level playing field between Member states and farmers and the need for flexibility to address the local constraints

28. Proposals from the Commission
Allow an exemption of reduction for minor cases of non-compliance

29. Proposals from the Commission
Allow a de minimis rule for applying the reductions

30. Proposals from the Commission
Harmonisation of control rates

31. Proposals from the Commission
Increase of control rates following high level of non-compliances limited to the concerned area of cross compliance (and no other areas)

32. Proposals from the Commission
Advance notice of on-the-spot checks

33. Proposals from the Commission
Clarify the selection, the timing, the elements and the reporting of on-the-spot checks

34. Proposals from the Commission
Taking into account the Farm Advisory System (FAS)
The FAS is a fundamental tool to implement cross compliance

35. Proposals from the Commission
Taking into account the relevant certification systems

36. Proposals from the Commission
Modify the so-called “10 month rule”

37. Proposals from the Commission
Phasing-in period for the introduction of SMRs under cross compliance for MS applying the SAPS
The 8 MSs applying the SAPS will introduce the SMRs along the same 3 steps as other MSs, as from 2009
BG and RO will introduce the SMRs along the same 3 steps as other MSs, as from 2012

38. Next steps
Discussion at the Council and the European parliament on the report.
Conclusions foreseen in June.

39. Next steps
Discussion at the Council and the European parliament on a draft Council Regulation on :
The 10 month rule
The phasing-in of SMRS for MSs applying SAPS
Provisions to be implemented as from 2008

40. Next steps
Discussion at the Management Committee for Direct Payments on implementing rules regarding the management and control.
Provisions to be implemented as from 2008

41. Next steps
Further discussions with the Member States to allow sharing “best practices” and comparing experience

42. Next steps
Changes to the scope of cross compliance will be addressed in the “Health Check”
The Commission has committed to foresee a realistic timetable for the inclusion of any new or changed requirements into the scope of cross compliance

43. Thank you for your attention
Information :