Aid regime for the Fruit & Vegetables sector in the EU: state of play

Transcription

1 Aid regime for the Fruit & Vegetables sector in the EU: state of play Emmanuel JACQUIN Olive oil & horticultural products DG Agriculture and Rural Development - European Commission «L avenir de l Organisation Commune de Marché Fruits et Légumes», Bruxelles, 21 October 2010

2 Outline 1. The reform of The evolution of Producer Organizations and Producer Groups 3. The post-2013 CAP 2

3 1. THE REFORM OF

4 Impact analysis The reform was based on an impact analysis which examined the following options: «transfer option»: almost total dismantling of the CMO and transfer of the EU contribution to POs to the second pillar and to the Single Payment Scheme «PO+ option»: reinforcement of POs «status quo scenario» Several difficulties were identified as concerns the «transfer option»: the problem of including new operations at that stage of rural development programming, the obligatory national co-financing in the second pillar and the unequal distribution of support at that time (reflecting the uneven grouping of supply through POs) between the Member States, which would have been perpetuated. The impact analysis concluded that the «PO+» option gathered the maximum of advantages. 4

5 Aims of the reform Enhance competitiveness and market orientation Make POs more attractive Increase flexibility and reduce administrative burden Reduce fluctuations in producer incomes, resulting from crises Increase consumption of fruit and vegetables in the EU Continue the sector s efforts to maintain and protect the environment Simplify the legislation 5

6 Budget redistribution Abolition of export refunds Abolition of Community Withdrawal Compensation (CWC) Limit of Community financing for Operational Funds kept at 4.1% of the VMP, but with a possibility to go up to 4.6% if the excess is used solely for crisis prevention and management. No total EU budget ceiling. 50% EU financing (60% in some cases) Increase in national financial assistance and corresponding Community reimbursement 6 mio increase for promotion (in the horizontal regulation) 6

7 Aims of the operational programmes planning and adjustment of production to demand optimising production costs and stabilising producer prices, concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by the members of the PO, improvement of product quality, boosting products commercial value, promotion of the products, whether in a fresh or processed form, environmental measures and methods of production respecting the environment, including organic farming, crisis prevention and management. 7

8 Further steps (2008/2009) Integration into the Single CMO: Council Regulation No 1234/2007 School Fruit Scheme: 90 million per year, 25 Member States participating in 2010/11 Simplification of marketing standards in 2008: repeal of 26 of the 36 specific marketing standards (SMS) for fresh fruit and vegetables and maintained the SMS for 10 products which represent approximately 75% of trade in value terms. For most of the other fresh F&V products, the General Marketing Standard has been introduced. EU expenditure for fruit and vegetables (excluding direct aids): 793,7 million in

9 EU expenditure for fruit and vegetables (in million ) Million Expenditure F&V Of which, operational programmes of POs NB excluding direct aids 9

10 Recent developments Ongoing recast of the implementing rules in the fruit and vegetables sector Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 A priority was given to a shorter amendment of the same regulation focusing on calculation of the value of the marketed production for processed products, crisis prevention and management: provisions to encourage free distribution as preferred destination of withdrawn products and to allow for more flexibility on the quantitative limit for withdrawals. Report of the High Level Group on milk, influenced by concepts already present in the Fruit and Vegetables regime (e.g. contractual relations, strenghtening of producer negotiating power, inteprofessional organisations), to be followed by Commission proposal by the end of

11 Next steps Alignment of the scmo to the Lisbon Treaty, Commission proposal by December 2010 (delegated acts vs implementing acts) Review of the EU quality policy, Commission proposal by December 2010 School Fruit Scheme: evaluation in 2012 and possible review. Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the regime as regards producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes, to be presented by the Commission by December Post-2013 CAP 11

12 2. THE EVOLUTION OF PRODUCER ORGANISATIONS AND PRODUCER GROUPS 12

13 Remarks Source: Annual Reports transmitted by the Member States Data on the impact of the 2007 reform are not available yet Provisional data, to be submitted to further checks 13

14 Organization rate of POs, APOs and PGs in EU 45,0% 40,0% 35,0% 30,0% 35,8% 33,5% 35,3% 34,8% 32,0% 30,5% 36,0% 34,6% 37,0% 35,3% 39,0% 33,8% Increasing trend of the organization rate over the past years for EU 15 and EU 10 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 6,1% 8,6% 8,5% 9,2% EU-15 EU-10 EU-27 Apparent overall decrease, after the enlargement of 2007, due to the low organization rate in EU 2 (<1%) 0,0%

15 Organization rate of POs, APOs and PGs by Member State in % 100% 101,2% 89,1% 90% 87,1% EU 27 average: 33,8% 80% 70% 61,9% Organization rate varies greatly between MS 60% 50% 40% 30% 46,1% 34,4% 46,3% 31,9% 37,9% 26,2% 38,6% 27,1% 50,9% 43,9% Highest organization rates in NL, BE and IE (NL > 100% due to transnational members) 20% 10% 0% 16,5% 17,3% 11,2% 11,3% 8,8% 3,8% 0,3% 0,1%0,0% BE BG CZ DK DE EL ES FR IE IT CY HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SL SK FI SE UK 15

16 Average VMP of POs in EU (mio ) 12,00 10,44 10,00 8,00 6,00 8,87 8,74 9,16 9,77 8,07 8,99 9,63 EU-15 EU POs in 2007 with a total VMP of mio Graduated increase of the average VMP, both for EU15 and EU10 4,00 3,65 3,37 3,41 3,84 EU15: +8,4% in 2007 vs 2006 EU10: +12,6% in 2007 vs ,00 0,

17 Comparison between VMP (mio ) and number of APOs in EU Constant increase of the VMP of APOs, in parallel with the growth of their number Number of APOs VMP of APOs The VMP increased by 9,3% in 2007 whereas the number of APOs decreased by 13,6% => higher concentration/stronger APOs (?)

18 Comparison between VMP (mio ) and number of PGs in EU Constant increase of the VMP and the number of PGs Number of PGs VMP of PGs In particular after 2004 (enlargement EU10)

19 Share of EU support in total VMP of the reference period in EU-27 in 2007 (POs) 4,5% 4,0% 3,5% 3,0% 2,5% 3,9% 3,9% 3,7% 3,0% 3,5% 3,4% 2,7% 3,8% 2,3% 3,6% 4,0% 3,9% 4,1% 2,7% 4,0% 3,3% Limit of 4,1 % of VMP Limit of 4.1% not reached in general 2,0% 1,5% 1,9% 2007 Reached only by NL, SK and SE 1,0% 0,5% 0,0% Belgique/België Danmark Deutschland Elláda España France Ireland Italia Kypros Magyarország Nederland Österreich Polska Slovensko Suomi/Finland Sverige United Kingdom 19

20 Better organization of the sector Larger number of POs and bigger VMP 1506 POs in 2007 with a total VMP of mio Average VMP of 10,44 mio at EU-15 and 3,84 mio at EU-10 level in 2007 Organization rate varies greatly between MS High increase for new MS (EU-10) : from 6% in 2004 to 9% in 2007 Increase from 2004 in old MS (EU-15) : from 32% in 2004 to 39% in 2007 Apparent status quo at EU level over the period and decrease in 2007 because of very low rate in RO. 20

21 3. THE POST-2013 CAP 21

22 What have we achieved so far? From market intervention to policy innovation Productivity Competitiveness Sustainability The Early Years The Crisis Years The 1992 Reform Agenda 2000 CAP reform 2003 CAP Health Check 2008 Food security Improving productivity Income support Over production Exploding expenditure International friction Structural measures Budget ceilings Reduced surpluses Environment Income stabilisation Deepening the reform process Marketstabilisation Competitiveness Rural development Stricter budget ceilings Market orientation Consumer concerns Rural development Environment Simplification WTO compatibility Reinforcing 2003 Reform New challenges Simplification 22

23 What have we achieved so far? within a stabilised and improved spending framework (2007 constant prices) billion % GDP EU-10 EU-12 EU-15 EU-25 EU-27 0,7% 0,6% 0,5% 0,4% 0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% Export subsidies Other market support Coupled direct payments Decoupled direct payments Rural development % of EU GDP Source: European Commission - DG Agriculture and Rural Development 23

24 Current structure of the CAP instruments Limited price support to safety net levels Income Decoupled support based on historical references Markets Direct payments Residual market instruments (incl. quotas) Cross- Compliance Structural adjustment Competitiveness & innovation Environment and land management Rural development Public goods Quality of life, diversification 24

25 Main challenges Globalisation the EU must contribute to ensuring global food security, but it must not block the progress of the emerging agricultural sectors in developing countries. Food challenge research and innovation, progress on yields Environmental challenge: quality of soil and water, biodiversity, climate change Economic challenge strengthen our common risk prevention and crisis management rules. Beyond direct aid, a solid safety net will also be necessary. New instruments for the excessive fluctuations in incomes. Territorial challenge the future of agriculture and rural areas is intimately linked Diversity as a result of enlargement, the EU has become more diverse. Simplicity the CAP needs to be simple and understandable 25

26 The CAP beyond 2013: the debate 12 April 2010 Launch of the public debate 4 questions 3 June 2010 Advisory group on CAP July 2010 Public conference End 2010 Commission Communication Summer 2011 Legal proposals AGRI-L1 Agricultural Policy Analysis and Perspectives 26

27 Thank you for your attention 27