Ráðunautafundur - 15.02.2002, Blaðsíða 176

174
order to ensure maximum gain from the new scheme, farmers will have to re-examine their
management systems. Payment enhancements could be received for adherence to such as
environmental criteria, stocking density limits, organic standards plus others.
Review of the Sheep Meat Regime
In late December, 2001, it was agreed that frorn 2002 the ewe premium payment will no longer be
variable based on average price levels throughout the community but will move to a fixed payment set
at 21 Euros. The full impact of this significant change is awaited.
3. Global Issues - Change in the Direction of Support
With World Trade Organisation talks in mind, the direction of support ffom the EU budget has
changed and will continue to do so. The WTO has repeatedly expressed concem about the proportion
of EU spending that goes towards direct market support. The EU has reduced the proportion of direct
market support seen by WTO to be ‘trade distorting’ such as the ‘amber box’ e.g. intervention support
from 70 per cent pre 1993 to 30 per cent today. Much of the change moved support to direct
payments the ‘blue box’ (e.g. arable area and livestock headage payments). These are still seen to be
production Iinked rather than to the ‘green box’ (e.g. agri-environmental schemes) that are seen to be
production neutral.
Agenda 2000 began this process through the introduction of the wide range of other support measures
not directly linked to production and aimed more at environmental issues. This approach is likely to
continue.
In essence future EU support for agriculture can be thought of as a shift from production to
countryside use. By Spring 2001, agricultural commentators were reporting (Anon, 2001) a growing
willingness among member states to ‘green up’ the CAP, with increasing references to
‘environmentally ffiendly farming’ and ‘sustainable development’. Many expect that the proposals to
revamp the CAP that will be put forward this year will be more radical and incorporate more green
issues than previously expected. This reflects the EU response to the growing consumer concem about
food production following the BSE problems in mainland Europe in 2000/01 and FMD.
In line with this anticipated development, reviews of agricultural policy in Britain are increasingly
adopting the ‘environmental hat’. For example, in March 2001, MAFF called for the existing diverse
support to the hills be replaced by a simpler ‘Hill Environment Land Management payment, that
would reward farmers for production and maintenance of landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage’
(MAFF, 2001).
The introduction of the Rural Development Regulation at the beginning of 2000 - the so-called
‘second pillar’ of the CAP - enabled a wide range of (‘green box’) measures to be introduced by
member states as an altemative source of support funding. However, part of the funding for this will
come ffom further reductions to market support payments, through the system of ‘modulation’. In
England this has been translated into the MAFF: England Rural Development Programme (ERDP),
administered by various Govemmental Departments and rural agencies.
The ERDP runs to 2006 and is indicative of the shape of support to come. Farmers, processors and
those involved with the marketing of meat and livestock products will now increasingly have to pick
their way through a multiplicity of available schemes and funding. However, not all producers will be
eligible for the funding and available funds are limited. The future is likely to hold an increased
emphasis on such schemes, as the EU continues to decouple support ffom production.
The WTO Negotiations
World Trade Organisation (WTO)- ‘Millennium Round’ talks have re-commenced and issues
conceming agriculture are central to these negotiations. Although it is hard to specify how such
global negotiations might impact on individuals in meat and livestock related industries, there will be
significant issues debated that cannot be ignored.
The aim of the WTO is to make world trade more competitive and more accessible. This could mean
the importing of more food products into the EU but, likewise, could open up more trading
opportunities for EU goods. The WTO is also increasingly going to be looking at the issue of ‘multi-
functionality’. This means they will be looking at the agriculture sector with a much wider view and
focussing on the things that are asked of the agricultural/rural sector other than as a food provider.