Ref. Ares(2021)7938574 - 22/12/2021
CC(21)6332:1
Art. 4.1(b)
Mr Pierre Bascou
P i ac
Director
Directorate D Sustainability and
Income support
DG AGRI
Commission européenne
130 rue de la Loi
B-1040 Bruxelles
Brussels, 1st October 2021
RE: draft implementing and delegated acts on the CAP
Dear Sir,
In the context of the current discussions on the preparation of the delegated and implementing acts
for the future CAP, Copa and Cogeca would like to share with you some of our concerns on the
matter.
As a general remark, while we acknowledge the need for clarity of the basic acts, the secondary
legislation under preparation should not lead to more rigid and/or prescriptive provisions. We are
very worried that in some specific areas which we will develop below, the secondary legislation goes
beyond the context of the political agreement reached by the co-legislators.
Regarding the draft secondary legislation in relation to GAEC 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 seem somehow
confusing and would possibly require some further alignment. In paragraph 1, the ratio of
permanent grassland in 2018 should be calculated based on farmers receiving direct payments, but
according to paragraph 2 the yearly ratio from 2023 onwards should be calculated on the basis of the
areas declared for that year by the beneficiaries receiving direct payments or the annual payments
under Articles 65, 66 and 67.
We are concerned that the impact the inclusion of permanent grassland belonging to organic
farmers in the calculation of the ratio of permanent grassland will have on this ratio and
consequently on all farmers given that organic farmers are currently exempted from the greening
obligation (permanent grassland). Thus, we consider that a provision needs to be added to the
delegated act establishing that when including the organic areas declared in 2018 for the calculation
of the ratio of permanent grassland, Member States can also decide to take into account the impact
of a possible change in the area of organic permanent grassland in the period from 2018 to 2023.
Moreover, the strict 0,5% threshold for the maintenance of permanent grassland in absolute terms
would not take into consideration the differences in farm holding structures across the EU and could
lead to a non-proportional penalization of smaller holdings. Consequently, we prefer keeping the
current formulation in art. 45 (3), second subparagraph of Regulation 1307/2013.
Furthermore, we would like to see the current provisions of art. 45 (4) of Regulation 1307/2013
threshold is the result of
afforestation that is compatible with the environment and does not include plantations of short
rotation coppice, Christmas trees or fast-growing trees for energy production
Member States should also be allowed to take into account the basic changes in area use (if for
Copa - Cogeca | European Farmers European Agri-Cooperatives
61, Rue de Trèves | B - 1040 Bruxel es | www.copa-cogeca.eu
EU Transparency Register Number |
Art. 4.1(b) Privacy
Regarding the secondary legislation in relation to the calculation of penalties for conditionality, the
new text regarding non-compliances occurring continuously throughout several calendar years is not
acceptable and is highly disproportionate. When a non-compliance is found, it is evaluated based on
leads to a system when a
farmer is punished twice (an administrative payment per year and a higher penalty due to the
unacceptable. In addition, the detection of the non-compliance should be done within the past three
calendar years in order to avoid heavy penalties.
In reference to the control by monitoring, while we welcome the possibility for lower level of
penalties for negligent non-compliances, there is no need for mentioning a threshold when
monitoring is used (100% checks). Furthermore, if area monitoring system is used, having lower
penalties should no longer be an option but an obligation for the Member States. Member States
should have the possibility to set the penalty system even lower. Certain flexibilities in the level of
penalties would also be needed when it comes to intentional non-compliances if the area monitoring
system is used. A reduced administrative penalty could also be applicable for other requirements of
conditionality where a 100% administrative control is conducted.
We would very much insist on the need for adherence to the basic act provisions according to which
no administrative penalty shall be applied where the non-compliance has no or only insignificant
consequences for the achievement of the objective of the standard or requirement concerned. An
appropriate and proportionate approach when it comes to reductions and penalty rates in case of
small unavoidable non-compliances should be followed at all times.
Moreover, in the case of negligent non-compliance, there should be a limitation of the penalty (no
higher than 5%) as indicated in art. 39 (1) of the current Regulation 640/2014.
It is very important to maintain a workable, efficient and practicable awareness mechanism to
ensure that farmers can remedy the non-compliance in due time and avoid that they are heavily
penalised.
Regarding the secondary legislation in relation to IACS, Copa and Cogeca oppose the inclusion of the
information on the use of plant protection products on each agricultural parcel in the geo-spatial aid
application. This data is already registered in the administrative records of the holding which need to
be kept for five years from the last entry so that the competent authorities have access to them when
controls are taking place. As the farmer would need to have permanent access to the application (the
farmer completes the application at the time of the treatment and not five months later), this would
require high-speed Internet which is not the case for all farmers (and rural regions in the EU) and
could lead to discrimination between farmers. Introducing this data in the informatized system of
the CAP would also strongly increase the costs and administrative burden for farmers. Moreover,
this idea did not have the political support of the European Parliament during the CAP negotiations.
On the time frame for corrections of applications, it is positive to see an extended time frame for
possible corrections of the aid application, and that it will be possible to correct non-compliances
detected by administrative checks and the monitoring system without imposing penalties.
On the area monitoring system, we are still doubtful on how the area monitoring system will be used.
The formulation of this specific part in the implementing act implies setting-up a system that will be
used to control farmers directly while the political intention of the area monitoring system was not
that one.
In addition, it is very unclear how the system of checks by monitoring and the area monitoring
system will function together. It is very important for farmers, that controls can be finished in a
timely manner so that payments to farmers can be disbursed as quickly as possible. The ongoing
checks by the area monitoring system should not prevent or delay this very important process.
2 | 3
We would further have several points of demands for clarification when it comes to the meaning of
"at least" in Article 3(2), the interpretation of "relevant" in the context of conditionality in Article
most recently updated
corresponding graphic material through GIS-based interface
part affected by the
non-compliance
presence of non-homogeneous
land use
points i and iii.
Finally, we would be against the use of other data sources for the area monitoring system.
Faithfully yours,
Art. 4.1(b) Privacy
3 | 3