|
Résumé :
|
Council Regulation (EC) N° 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP from now on) introduced a new system of decoupled payments linked to cross compliance requirements. Set aside obl[...]
Council Regulation (EC) N° 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP from now on) introduced a new system of decoupled payments linked to cross compliance requirements. Set aside obligations ¿ introduced in the context of the 1992 CAP reform by Council Regulation (EC) N° 1765/92 - were maintained in the form of special ¿set aside entitlements¿ which trigger a payment only, if the land on which such entitlements are activated is set aside from production. The changes introduced for the set aside measure in the context of the reformed CAP are aimed at maintaining the traditional supply control benefits of the measure, while reinforcing its environmental benefits. The need to carry out an evaluation of set aside measure over the 2000-2006 period stems from Council Regulation (EC) N° 1605/2002, which calls for all measures causing budgetary expenditure to have their results evaluated in a cycle of six years. A first evaluation of the set aside measure was carried out in 2001, covering the marketing years from 1993/1994 to 1999/2000 (Oréade-Brèche, 2002).The objectives of the study are to be identified in the following : (1) Providing a description of the arable crops sectors (common wheat, durum wheat, rye and meslin, barley, oats and mixed cereals, maize, other cereals, rapeseed, sunflower seed, soyabeans) in the EU-25 and of their developments over the evaluation period (2000-2006); of the farming systems producing arable crops in the EU-25 and of their evolution over the evaluation period (2000-2006); of the set aside measure and of the direct payment scheme in general, and of their evolution over the evaluation period (2000-2006), distinguishing between the period before and after the implementation of the 2003 CAP reform. (2) carrying out an evaluation of the set aside measure in the EU-25 over the 2000-2006 period, by answering to the 13 evaluation questions providing reasoned conclusions and founded judgments on the relevant issues raised by each evaluation question. The final goal of the work to be carried out for the achievement of the objectives at point 1 and 2 above is the elaboration of policy recommendations ¿ on the basis of the findings of the evaluation work and of the judgments ¿ concerning the set aside measure and aimed at improving its coherence, relevance, utility, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.The evaluation questions are the following : (1) In which way did farmers adapt their production decisions in order to minimise negative impacts on their income caused by the compulsory set aside measure? (Counterfactual: production decision without set aside obligation); (2) To what extent are farmers' incomes maintained despite the fact of restricted utilisation of land due to the set aside measure? (Distinguish between fallow, non food oilseed production, and other non food crops; (3) To what extent did a dislocation of set aside obligation from the more productive to the less productive areas occur and to what extent did this reduce the effect of set aside on supply control?; (4) To what extent did set aside contribute to achieving market equilibrium and to reduce intervention stocks? Identify first the relevant arable products affected by set aside and carry out analysis for the markets of these products; (5) To what extent were farmers' incomes affected by possible price changes caused by the set asidemeasure? Consider in this respect : the possible effects of set aside on enhancing EU price support, the possible effects of set aside on world market prices, in how far the income effects of the restricted utilisation of land (question 2) were set off by the income effect of possible price changes; (6) In how far are the costs of the set aside measure justified in relation to the obtained effects on the reduction/non-accumulation of intervention stocks? Consider budgetary costs as well as income losses of farmers; (7) To what extent did set aside contribute to create environmental benefits? Consider in this respect : the different uses of set aside land, the duration of the set aside, the way GAEC requirements have been implemented, and other relevant implementation conditions. Examine in particular impacts on biodiversity, water, and soil. Consider positive and negative impacts; (8) To what extent did the possible dislocation of set aside obligation from the more productive to the less productive areas affect the environmental impacts of set aside?; (9) In how far is the budgetary cost of the set aside measure reasonable in relation to the environmental impacts obtained and compared to more targeted policies to reach environmental impacts?; (10) To what extent has the energy crop production on set aside land contributed to improve the supply of energy crops/ bio-fuels? (Counterfactual: production of energy crops in absence of set aside regime); (11) To what extent is the set aside measure coherent with the overall objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003?; (12) To what extent is the objective of supply control relevant in the context of the reformed CAP since 2003? and (13) To what extent did the administration and control requirements due to Set Aside increase the costs of implementation of the direct support scheme? (Counterfactual: no set aside obligation) Distinguish between the costs occurring from the set aside obligation as such and the costs caused by the production of non food crops on set aside land. Estimate costs at Member State and European level. (The question only refers to costs occurring within public bodies implementing the measure).The study is organised in two main parts : (1) Descriptive part covering : the arable crops (cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, other relevant EU-25 and their developments over the evaluation period; the farming systems producing arable crops in the EU-25 and evaluation period; the set aside measure and the direct payment scheme in evolution over the evaluation period, distinguishing between the the implementation of the 2003 CAP reform. (2) Evaluation proper, with : the answers to each of the 13 evaluation questions (EQ), conclusions and founded judgments on the relevant issues raised ; policy recommendations ¿ on the basis of the findings of the evaluation judgments ¿ concerning the set aside measure and aimed at relevance, utility, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.
|
