Your Say

24/06/2008

Euroview

Mention cross compliance to any farmer and the response is likely to be the same: anger and frustration.

Farmers are living under the burden of onerous paperwork and the ever present threat of breaching cross compliance rules which lead to a penalty.

Yet cross compliance was meant to be clear and simple; the new way forward after production-linked subsidies were abandoned in the 2003 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

It was meant to be fair to farmers, consumers and taxpayers – giving farmers a set of standards to adhere to in return for receiving a payment. The standards cover protection of the environment, public, animal and plant health, animal welfare and keeping the land in good agricultural condition.

In this way the Commission hoped to make farming more sustainable and make the CAP more compatible with the expectations of consumers and taxpayers.

Mindful of farmers’ concerns, MEPs met earlier this month to discuss the European Commission's plans to to simplify and improve the system of cross-compliance.

Moves to improve cross compliance will be welcomed by the farming community. They need cross compliance that is proportionate and clear, and which rewards good practice and recognises the importance of farm assurance.

Most importantly, it must be applied equally across EU member states to avoid putting one country at a competitive disadvantage to another.

The EU is proposing to streamline its monitoring procedures and bring a lighter touch to the penalty system.

The original intention of cross compliance was to be a consistent way of encouraging good farm practice and keeping land in good agricultural condition.

But sadly, all too often, farmers have rightly felt that the system is designed to catch them out, rather than to help them fulfil the requirements. The Commission is beginning to listen to what we in the Parliament have been saying for some time and their proposals are certainly a step in the right direction.

But I think that much more on top of this can be done to make the system easier on farmers without jeopardising its overall objectives. And the Commission should get a move on. It's difficult to understand why these adjustments cannot be made this year, not next year!
 

back to news page