Activites

• 2007/04/05 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Regulation 2007/378
  • OJ L 095 05.04.2007, p. 0001
• #2792
• 2007/03/27 Council Meeting
• 2007/03/27 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2007/03/27 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• #2790
• 2007/03/19 Council Meeting
• 2007/02/14 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0036/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Lutz GOEPEL (EPP-ED, DE) once again rejecting - under the consultation procedure - the Commission proposal for a voluntary modulation scheme under the common agricultural policy. (For details, please refer to the summary dated 24/01/2007.) The proposal was rejected by 89 votes in favour to 584 against with 19 abstentions The legislative resolution (confirming Parliament's rejection of the proposal) was adopted by 572 votes in favour to 65 against with 16 abstentions.

• 2007/02/13 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2007/01/26 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0009/2007
• 2007/01/24 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2006/11/22 Report referred back to committee
• 2006/11/14 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2006/11/13 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

     The plenary held a debate on the Commission proposal laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation N° 1782/2003 (direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy). In the course of the debate, MEPs outlined the main reasons why the proposal should be rejected, as advocated by the committee responsible (see summary dated 03/10/2006):the lack of any impact assessment, although the legal act would clearly have a substantial impact on farmers,the danger of discrimination against farmers within the EU, against which the proposal does not contain any precautions,the renationalisation of agricultural policy through the back door,certain aspects of the proposal which are unsatisfactory as far as budgetary and structural policy are concerned (particularly the omission of a co-financing requirement),the failure to involve Parliament in the preparation of such a far-reaching proposal, andthe fact that the proposal on voluntary modulation largely prejudges the outcome of the 'Health Check' in 2008/2009 for the field of agriculture without involving Parliament as an equal partner in the discussion process, as provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement on the Financial Perspective.The following day, 14 November 2006, the plenary decided by 559 votes to 64, with 16 abstentions, to reject the proposal. As the Commission did not withdraw its proposal, the report was referred back to committee, in line with Parliament's Rules of Procedure. 

• 2006/10/26 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2006/10/05 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0315/2006
• 2006/10/03 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2006/09/05 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• #2745
• 2006/07/18 Council Meeting
  • 2745 summary

    The Council held a policy debate on voluntary modulation. On 10 July 2006, an initial debate took place in the Special Committee on Agriculture, where the delegations voiced their views on this proposal. Their main concerns related to: the lack of flexibility vis-à-vis the voluntary modulation scheme proposed by the Commission; the need for greater flexibility regarding the specific rates of modulation in a Member State depending on the different regions; the extension dates for notifying rates; and an exemption from the minimum EUR 5000 franchise. Some delegations also expressed their opposition to the need for compliance with the minimum spending rates per axis for these funds.The policy debate, which was held on 18 July 2006, led to political guidance in order to allow the Special Committee on Agriculture to make progress on this issue with a view to formal adoption by the Council towards the end of 2006, pending the opinion of Parliament.During the policy debate, several delegations stated their support for the Commission’s proposal but called for greater flexibility on the chosen rate of voluntary modulation as well as voicing the possibility of an annual adjustment. In follow up to the discussion during the initial debate some delegations revisited the issue of applying different rates for regions in the same country. They also raised the matter of the two months deadline within which Member States need to notify the Commission of their chosen rates for modulation. A few delegations reiterated their wish for voluntary modulation to be exempted from the EUR 5000 franchise (a minimum threshold for direct payments below which compulsory modulation does not apply). The possibility that a distortion of competition among the Member States may result from the proposed scheme was also raised.Commissioner Fischer-Boel reminded the Council of the decision to limit voluntary modulation to direct payments in the first pillar – direct payments and market expenditures – and indicated that the Commission had chosen to align the rules on voluntary modulation with those applicable to existing rules on compulsory modulation. Bearing this in mind the Commissioner stressed that the EUR 5000 franchise applicable to compulsory modulation would also apply to voluntary modulation, as well as the minimum spending rates per axis for rural development. As such, applying a regional application of voluntary modulation would be a departure from the compulsory modulation rules and would, furthermore, be difficult to manage.On the request to adjust the modulation rate annually, Commissioner Fischer-Boel pointed out that modifying rates upwards or downwards would not be in the best interest of sound financial planning. She reminded the Member States that the provisions on voluntary modulation would be reviewed in the 2008 “Health Check” on CAP reform.

• 2006/05/24 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2006)0241 summary

    PURPOSE:  allowing the Member States to voluntarily reduce the direct payments to farmers, by up to 20%, and to use those amounts to finance rural development programs.PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation.CONTENT: the Commission has presented this draft Regulation in response to a European Council agreement on the financial framework for 2007-2013 whereby Member States are given the option to “modulate” or reduce market expenditure and direct payments by up to 20% on CAP expenditure. The amounts thus gathered may be channelled into rural development programmes rather than being spent on direct payments to farmers. In order to do so the Commission must amend two related Regulations: -         Regulation 1782/2003, establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the CAP. (For a summary of its provisions refer to CNS/2003/0006); and -         Regulation 1290/2005, on the financing of the common agricultural policy (For a summary of its provisions refer to CNS/2004/0164).To recap, Regulation 1782/2003 introduces the partial decoupling of production-related aid by making payment of such aid conditional on compliance with rules on the environment, animal welfare, hygiene standards and the preservation of the countryside. The Regulation allows for a single farm payment, which (partially) de-couples payment from production. It also seeks to develop the “second pillar” of the CAP relating to rural development through increases in horizontal aid, separate from production activity (“first pillar”). Regulation 1290/2005, on the other hand, sets out the specific requirements and rules on the financing of expenditure falling under the CAP, including on rural development. To do so it sets up two funds: the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).The present proposal lays down the rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments by setting out how the Member States can apply voluntary modulation and how the money can be used for rural development. A first important principle will be that the money will transit through the Community budget. Thus any decrease in commitment appropriations relating to direct payments or the “first pillar” will result in an equivalent increase in commitment appropriations for rural development or the “second pillar”. The proposal, therefore, has no direct impact on the Community’s budget since it is budgetary neutral.Voluntary modulation will be aligned, as much as possible, to the provisions for compulsory modulation by applying the same base of direct payments. In other words, a franchise of the first EUR 5000 of direct payment would also apply to such additional reduction as in the case of compulsory modulation involving an additional amount of aid to be returned to the farmers, within ceilings per Member State applying voluntary modulation to be fixed by the Commission. The Member States would be required to communicate the rate of voluntary modulation they wish to apply to the Commission, covering the period 2007-2012 (calendar years for direct payments).Member States applying for voluntary modulation would receive the corresponding amounts as a second source of Community funding for their rural development programmes, to which all rural development rules would apply. Released funds would be used within the mainstream rural development programmes to allow management programmes by the same management authorities and paying agencies. Lastly, the Commission would be empowered to adopt the implementing rules for integrating voluntary modulation and for its financial management.For further information concerning the financial implications of this measure, please refer to the financial statement.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/', 'title': 'Agriculture and Rural Development'}, FISCHER BOEL Mariann

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2006)0241
• Debate in Council: 2745
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0315/2006
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0009/2007
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0036/2007
• : Regulation 2007/378
• : OJ L 095 05.04.2007, p. 0001

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)