download file

equalisation would take place at the regional/
Member State level only.
So, where is the spirit of the leveling of
the conditions of competition within
the European Union? Did we not learn
anything from the crisis that we are
witnessing?
Introduction of new – as I said – additional
tasks for the CAP (including the restrictions for
production practices) while retaining the present
budget level shall lead to a restriction in the
international competitiveness of EU agriculture
and the moving of partial production outside
the EU which would have negative consequences,
i.e., environmental ones.
Besides, I would like to emphasise that the
scope of leveling of direct support among the
Member States is insignificant and in fact the
diversification of rates based on the historical
intensity of production is maintained (although
reduced). The project provides for only a partial
reduction in the disproportions of payments
amount among the Member States. There are
no proposals guaranteeing the complete leveling
of direct payments across the European
Union based on flat rates which would be consistent
with the Polish postulate that the area
of arable land should be the only or basic criterion
determining the amount of national envelopes
(i.e. properly describing the potential with
regard to food production and environmental
protection). By the end of 2019, such leveling
would take place at a regional/Member State
level only.
Also, it is unfavourable to abandon financial
strengthening of the 2 nd pillar,
which was an element of all existing
reforms of the CAP and the favoured
support method for the active development
of EU agricultural and rural areas.
I would also like to highlight the fact that
moving certain functions and measures between
the pillars as well as new components of
the 1 st pillar will result in the obliteration of the
currently clear allocation of roles between the
1 st and 2 nd pillar.
As a consequence, it will result in an increased
complexity of the CAP, in particular
within the 1 st pillar, inter alia, by separating the
green component of payments, complex relations
under the Good Agricultural and Environmental
Condition (GAEC), green component of
the 1 st pillar and agri-environmental measures
of the 2 nd pillar.
I can, however also notice some positive elements
in the presented proposal. They include,
undoubtedly, an improvement in the distribution
of direct support among holdings of various
sizes through the mechanism of degressive
payment reduction – for large holdings (capping)
and increase in unit support rates – for
small holdings (the effect of lump-sum payment
for small holdings).
A step in the right direction is also to feature
the role of small holdings in the European agricultural
model and in the implementation of
the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, in
particular those regarding growth which is sustainable
and favours creation of thematic subprogrammes
under the RDP for this group of
holdings. Lump-sum direct payment for small
holdings and support for the diversification of
income under the 2 nd pillar as well as instruments
strengthening their market position are
to be used for this purpose.
It is also beneficial to extend the scope
of the CAP toolbox by new measures
which are complementary to the present
instruments and respond to new
challenges.
I mean here, for example, new risk management
instruments, extension of the scope of
measures: support for producer groups and
extension of certain market measures to all
products.
It is not possible to mention all the negative
and positive elements of the so-called legislative
package presented by the European Commission.
Many of them certainly require further
clarification and making them more specific.
Certainly, the proposed solutions are not a reform
of the Common Agricultural Policy to an
extent which is necessary for European agriculture
and besides they do not correspond to
expectations. As Ministers of Agriculture, we
gave voice to this during the debate of the EU
Council for Agriculture and Fisheries in Luxembourg
which was held on 20-21 October 2011.
The proposal to exclude from production 7%
Autumn 2011 5