2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report
DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
3.12.5 Coherence with Common Agricultural Policy (I and II pillars)
This section aims to explore the CPHR coherence with the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP), in particular in view of the evolving objectives and mechanisms of the later after the
2008 ‗Health Check‘, as the emphasis is shifting from pillar I (direct support) to pillar II (rural
development) measures 253 .
General survey results
Q 9.1 Source of inconsistencies between CPHR and Common Agricultural Policy:
2 out of 25 MS CAs and 3 out of 20 stakeholders consider that CPHR overlaps with the CAP (11 MS CAs and
14 stakeholders do not know).
Q 9.2 Extent to which the revision of the CPHR in future should be guided by any of the principles
developed under the Common Agricultural Policy:
9 out of 25 MS CAs and 2 out of 21 stakeholders consider that the revision of the CPHR should be guided by the
CAP (8 MS CAs and 16 stakeholders do not know).
The availability of resources to finance the new CPHR has to be examined in the context of
the more general budget revision (EU financial perspectives) post 2013, including the review
of the financial package available to agriculture. It is noted that this process has not started yet
at political level, although the CAP has been adjusting with the re-allocation of funds from
pillar I to pillar II under the ‗Health Check‘ 254 .
A measure introduced under the ‗Health Check‘ (Council Regulation 73/2009EC 255 ), by
‗Article 68‘, allows MS to retain, per sector, up to 10% of their national budget ceilings for
direct payments for use for environmental measures or improving the quality and marketing
of products in that sector or, among other things, to support risk management measures in
another sector such as insurance schemes (according to Article 70 of the above Regulation)
and mutual funds (Article 71).
According to Article 70, MS may grant financial contributions to premiums for crop, animal
and plant insurance against economic losses caused by adverse climatic events and animal or
plant diseases or pest infestation. For the purpose of this Article, ‗economic losses‘ shall mean
253 The rural development policy is commonly referred to as the 2nd pillar of the CAP, whereas product and
producer support is referred to as 1st pillar. The separation of the CAP into two pillars stems from the fact that
they are funded through different budget envelopes with different rules. While pillar 1 is solely funded by the EU
budget, pillar 2 is based on a multi- annual programming and Member States co-finance the programmes. As a
result of the Health Check agreement, assuming that all foreseen direct payments are made, the distribution of
expenditure for the period 2010-2013 would roughly be 69% for producer support (direct payments), 7% for
market measures (product support), and 24% for rural development (source: DG AGRI). The rural development
policy is commonly referred to as the 2nd pillar of the CAP, whereas product and producer support is referred to
as 1st pillar.
254 More information on this can be found at the DG AGRI website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-
2013/index_en.htm
255 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct
support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for
farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 262