Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Kari Valonen, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - Finnish preliminary views on future CAP

Seminar on the Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 | Simply better CAP post 2020 - mission impossible? | bit.ly/1YiEYch

  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Kari Valonen, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - Finnish preliminary views on future CAP

  1. 1. Finnish Preliminary Views on the Future CAP Kari Valonen, Head of EU Coordination Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 19.4.2016
  2. 2. To be touched upon • Principles important for Finland • Lessons learned, challenges to be met • A simpler model (?)
  3. 3. Principles • The agricultural policy needs to be maintained as a common policy. • The CAP must enable diverse agricultural production in all regions of the EU, also in those areas where production costs are high due to natural conditions. Flexibility and specific solutions for MS are needed due to different structures and production conditions.
  4. 4. Lessons learned • The two pillars of CAP are mixed and have common elements but lack harmonization (definitions differ, similar objectives under both pillars). • Direct payments, market measures and rural development measures are appropriate basic tools for meeting policy objectives… • …but the structure, implementation and the control/audit/sanctions regime of the policy needs to be simplified.
  5. 5. Lessons learned (cont.) • New tools need to be developed for market and risk management. • Environmental and climate change objectives need to be tackled – but in a more simple fashion. • A more detailed and targeted policy requires also more controls and follow-up of its effects. how to find a balance?
  6. 6. Lessons learned (cont.) • In implementation, control and audits, the Commission’s regular answer to ECA and EP criticism is tightening the rules. • The ever more detailed regulation makes the policy unmanageable for the farmers and the PAs… resulting to higher implementation costs, and … despite a considerable increase in control costs the error rates do not normally fall below 2 % level ...  thus a need for ever tighter control…
  7. 7. Lessons learned (cont.) • There is a need for a serious discussion on controls between the Court of Auditors, the Commission, the Council and the EP. • The control efforts, costs and sanctions must be in proportion to the real risk to the EU funds. At the moment the cost-benefit point of view is missing.
  8. 8. Challenges • Need to answer societal expectations concerning e.g. – traditional CAP objectives – environmental issues – climate change adaptation/mitigation – increased market volatility – risk management • How to do it without increasing EU funding and maintaining a common policy that uses the funds effectively for meeting the objectives?
  9. 9. A simpler model • Move from two pillars to one pillar structure simplification: remove overlapping elements harmonization: have only one set of objectives and definitions throughout the policy
  10. 10. Other RD Investments Animal welfare Organic production Young farmers ANC New SEM** Crises/risk mngment Coupled support Basic payment* 10 21.04.16 10 Investments ANC-PII Market measures Small farms Basic payment Redistributive payment PillarIIPillarI CAPpost2020,SinglePillar CAP2014-2020 Coupled support Young farmers ANC-PI Greening Animal welfare Young farmers Organic production Market measures AECM • SAPS type, regionalized flat-rate, no entitlements Other RD ** ”Single Environmental Measure” combining greening and AECM ? ?
  11. 11. A simpler model (cont.) • Review the baseline: evaluate CC to simplify it, include only clear, relevant and directly farming-related matters on which the farmer can influence. • SAPS-type basic support: regionalized flat-rate, no payment entitlements. • Continue coupled payments at the current levels for maintaining production in vulnerable sectors and areas.
  12. 12. A simpler model (cont.) • Combine greening, environmental and climate measures into a new comprehensive ”Single Environmental Measure” (SEM) fix a minimum % for EU funding in national ”envelope” • Enhance risk management  which tools?
  13. 13. A simpler model (cont.) • The Commission approves MS policy choises and support elements, but in a much simpler manner than the current RDPs • Less measures, more harmonized and streamlined rules more clarity, less IT systems to design and manage, less control, less errors (hopefully)…
  14. 14. To sum up • The single pillar model is more simple, coherent and stable answers to the societal needs concerning food security, environment and climate is more flexible for MS and less bureaucratic for farmers
  15. 15. Other RD Investments Animal welfare Organic production Young farmers ANC New SEM** Crises/risk mngment Coupled support Basic payment* 15 21.04.16 15 Investments ANC-PII Market measures Small farms Basic payment Redistributive payment PillarIIPillarI CAPpost2020,SinglePillar CAP2014-2020 Coupled support Young farmers ANC-PI Greening Animal welfare Young farmers Organic production Market measures AECM • SAPS type, regionalized flat-rate, no entitlements Other RD ** ”Single Environmental Measure” combining greening and AECM ? ?

×