CAP reform is 'not on ice'
MetadataShow full item record
CTA. 2002. CAP reform is 'not on ice'. Agritrade, December 2002. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/52541
External link to download this item: http://agritrade.cta.int/Back-issues/Agriculture-monthly-news-update/2002/December-2002
Speaking to the Irish agri-business sector on...
Speaking to the Irish agri-business sector on November 11th 2002, Agriculture Commissioner Fischler argued that the EU must make 'agriculture more competitive and market oriented'. Emphasising that this objective underpins the Commission's proposals for the mid-term review of the CAP. Commissioner Fischler reiterated the importance: of strengthening the rural development pillar of the CAP; shifting to a de-coupled system of single farm payments linked to cross compliance with environmental, animal welfare and food safety criteria; enhancing the price competitiveness of EU agriculture; promoting higher food quality standards. He affirmed that the de-coupling of farm payments from production is still on the agenda pointing out that the only alternative to de-coupling would be a 'brusque cut of direct aid', something which the Commissioner felt would hardly be 'the preferred option'. He claimed that the proposed reforms would ensure the EU's role as a major exporter of food and drink products, but emphasised that the EU would have to stick to its WTO obligations to cut-trade distorting support. With regard to the extension of reform to other sectors, Commissioner Fischler pointed out that dairy-sector reforms already agreed would now need to be implemented in 2007 and 2008. This delay he felt would make the reform process more difficult, given the need to reach agreement in an enlarged EU. Comment: Although the timing and the details of the CAP reform process may be subject to considerable uncertainty, recent debates show that the overall direction remains clear, namely towards non-production related de-coupled farm payments. For the ACP the question arises: what will this mean for those products into which ACP exporters have diversified (e.g. cut flowers) which while currently part of the CAP regime are not subject to price support or product-specific direct aid payments? For example would a system of non-production related de-coupled farm payments exert a downward pressure on market prices in the cut flowers sector, to the detriment of ACP suppliers?
SubjectsMARKETING AND TRADE;
- CTA Agritrade