MAGAZINE - Copa-Cogeca
MAGAZINE - Copa-Cogeca
MAGAZINE - Copa-Cogeca
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
April 2012 │ 9<br />
Peter Pascher, Chairman of the EU Comissions Rural<br />
Development Advisory Group , welcomed in an interview<br />
many aspects of EU Commission proposals on Rural<br />
Development Policy under the future Common Agricultural<br />
Policy (CAP). But he expressed major concerns about<br />
proposed criteria for a new delimitation of less favoured areas<br />
(LFA), warning it will be a disaster for some Member States.<br />
He also highlighted the need to reduce red tape under the<br />
proposals.<br />
Mr Pascher stressed “Overall,<br />
we favour the Commissions’<br />
approach on future EU<br />
rural development policy. In<br />
particular we like the move<br />
from the ‘axis’ approach to<br />
a thematic approach under<br />
the Rural Development<br />
Policy proposals. We think this will give Member States or<br />
regions more flexibility to take account of their own specific<br />
conditions. We also support the new and further developed<br />
measures, such as knowledge and innovation transfer and<br />
cooperation measures. We welcome the new European<br />
Innovation Partnership which will bring together farmers,<br />
advisors and researchers”.<br />
But we are very worried about the review of LFA whereby<br />
much of the previous LFAs would lose their status and others<br />
would gain. “We don’t know how we can explain this to<br />
Many aspects of future EU rural<br />
development policy proposals welcomed<br />
but serious concerns over IFA review,<br />
Peter Pascher chairman of commission<br />
advisory group “rural development”<br />
stresses<br />
farmers or taxpayers”, he said. <strong>Copa</strong>-<strong>Cogeca</strong> urges Ministers to<br />
take into account its proposals and hopes Council and MEPs<br />
will agree on a delimitation of LFAs which is comprehensible<br />
and takes in account the real difficulties in land management.<br />
He continued “We also have serious concerns about<br />
Commission proposals to further green the CAP and make<br />
30% of farmers direct payment dependent upon complying<br />
with environmental conditions. It increases the burden on<br />
farmers significantly and raises farm costs or diminishs farm<br />
receipts, reducing their competitive position. For example, it<br />
is very difficult for many farmers to grow 3 crops for climatic<br />
or agronomic reasons. If this measure remained under the<br />
second pillar of the CAP, farmers would be able to decide<br />
voluntarily whether to do it, promoted with a premium, or<br />
whether to choose other measures”. <strong>Copa</strong>-<strong>Cogeca</strong> is calling<br />
for measures to encourage “green growth”. For example,<br />
measures which help farmers achieve resource efficiency – to<br />
use less water, fossil energy and fertilizers - such as precision<br />
farming. That way farmers benefit from reduced costs, they<br />
maintain production but they also benefit the environment.<br />
Or measures to encourage more bio-energy production<br />
including the use of residues.<br />
<strong>Copa</strong>-<strong>Cogeca</strong> is calling for a<br />
specific article under Rural<br />
Development on green growth<br />
measures, just as there is a<br />
specific article for animal<br />
welfare and so on. “We<br />
meanwhile welcome the 7<br />
specific articles on forestry even<br />
if some improvements are needed”, he added.<br />
Mr Pascher went on to highlight the need to simplify the<br />
Leader initiative, which aims to encourage sustainable<br />
development in the region, saying it takes too much time<br />
for many farmers and needs to become more attractive<br />
for entrepreneurs in order to become effective and more<br />
sustainable.