Cannot ensure cross-compliance rules under CAP are effective, warns EU

Cross-compliance links agricultural subsidy payments to the environment and other rules farmers have to follow
Cross-compliance links agricultural subsidy payments to the environment and other rules farmers have to follow

The European Commission has said it does not currently have enough information to 'adequately assess' whether cross-compliance rules under the Common Agricultural Policy are effective.

According to a new report from the European Court of Auditors, the auditors found that performance indicators gave only a partial view, procedures remained complex and the Commission had no reliable cost estimate.

Cross-compliance links agricultural subsidy payments to the environment and other rules farmers have to follow.

The auditors examined whether cross-compliance management and control systems were effective and whether they could be further simplified.

They carried out two surveys among Paying Agencies and Farm Advisory Bodies and visited three Member States – Germany (Schleswig-Holstein), Spain (Catalonia) and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland).

They concluded that the information available did not allow the Commission to adequately assess the effectiveness of cross-compliance. Despite changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014–2020, cross-compliance management and control systems could still be simplified, they said.

'7.5 million farmers subject to rules'

Despite changes to CAP for 2014–2020, cross-compliance management and control systems
Despite changes to CAP for 2014–2020, cross-compliance management and control systems 'could still be simplified'

“7.5 million farmers are subject to the cross-compliance rules”, said Mr Nikolaos Milionis, the Member of the European Court of Auditors responsible for the report.

“But the Commission currently cannot be sure whether the system is contributing to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture in the EU.”

The auditors found that performance indicators used by the Commission gave only a partial view of the effectiveness of cross-compliance. The indicators did not take into account the level of non-compliance by farmers.

Furthermore, the Commission did not analyse the reasons for infringements or how to address them.

CAP changes for 2014–2020 did reduce the number of cross-compliance obligations for farmers by removing requirements not sufficiently relevant to farming activity, but procedures remained complex.

Simplification measures, such as the small farmers’ scheme, have to be 'balanced' against the need to achieve the objectives of cross compliance, the auditors suggest.

Cross-compliance system

Farming practices under the new greening payment have similarities with previous standards of “good agricultural and environmental condition”.

Consequently, say the auditors, there are currently two sets of complementary agricultural practices with the same objectives: maintenance of land and protection of bio-diversity.

Despite their similarities, the rules are checked under two control systems. This may lead to inefficiencies in control systems and additional bureaucracy.

The costs of implementing cross-compliance are not sufficiently quantified, say the auditors. As long as the Commission does not have a reliable estimate of the overall cost at cross-compliance level, it cannot ensure that the cross-compliance system is cost-effective.

They also found that the sanction system did not ensure a sufficiently harmonised basis for calculating administrative penalties for EU farmers who did not comply with the rules. The application of the severity, extent, permanence and intentionality factors for similar cases varied significantly between Member States.