The Council of Ministers agreed in June 2003 on the mid-term review of the CAP. This reform leaves a lot of flexibility for the Member States on how to implement the reform at national level. Under a special “Franco-German” deal, it also fixed the agricultural spending levels until 2013. Whether the mid-term review will fulfil the expectations of the public and will make the CAP greener will depend to a great extent on how Member States will use these options (see EEB paper: "Opportunities for greening the CAP on national level" , November 10th, 2003).

The EEB welcomed the introduction of compulsory cross-compliance in the mid-term review, which makes, as from 2005, implementing EU legislation on the environment, food safety and animal welfare a prerequisite for receiving direct payments. Another important element of the reform is the principle that in future most direct payments will be decoupled from production, which reduces to an extent the incentive to intensify production. This positive effect is somewhat countered by the fact that may member states chose the option of ‘historical payments' which effectively means that farmers get paid for the fact that they once produced food. A recent study by BirdLife and IEEP on the implementation of cross compliance so far demonstrated that there is a great variation between member states. The 2003 reform also agreed to shift resources from pillar one (market measures and direct payments) to the rural development budget by reducing payments of larger holdings. This 'modulation' will start with 3% in 2005 and reach 5% in 2007, which will result in an extra 1.2 billion Euro for the rural development budget.

The discussions in 2005 on the ‘policy challenges and budgetary means for an enlarged EU for the period 2007-2013' have brought the question of financing the CAP again to the forefront. Opinions on this are rather divided, with European Parliament advocating a careful introduction of co-financing under pillar 1 but certain member states in Council vehemently opposing any further cuts in EU agricultural spending. The EEB will continue to advocate a strengthening of the rural development policy and a further transfer of resources to 'pillar two' (rural development) and work to ensure that support to farmers will be directly linked to their environmental performance.

There is a strong interest among EEB members to stop or suspend the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. The EEB is part of a coalition with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (with other organisations often involved) to put pressure on the EU decision-makers to insist on policies that prevent any risk of GMOs negatively affecting biodiversity and food quality both inside Europe and in other parts of the world.

Another issue that is getting increasingly more attention is the relationship between agriculture and climate change and more specifically, how agriculture can contribute to reversing climate change. The production of biomass and bio-energy can definitely be part of a strategy to reduce CO2 emission as well as help diversify rural incomes. However, at the same time it should be made very clear that such production should not contribute to a continuation or expansion of environmentally unsustainable farming methods, both within and outside the EU.

Aims:

After adopting the 2005 working programme we have decided to work towards the following aims:

• Ensure that positive nature and environmental elements in the new proposal from the European Commission are not weakened or partially adopted by the Council before the new proposal is (fully) adopted.

• Take part in the discussion on how the new proposal should be implemented in Member States to increase the benefit for nature and the environment. The main implementation issues are likely to be:

• how cross-compliance is defined by the Member States

• how national budget allocations should be used by the Member States

• how 'second pillar' money should be used by the Member States

• how the CAP is implemented in Accession Countries.

• Take part in the discussions about the potential of biological/organic farming and the right policies to promote this.

• Aim to influence the revision of the Rural Development Regulation in 2005. Ensure that rural development policy for the period 2007 - 2013 is strengthened, delivers on EU environmental priorities, takes a more integrated approach, and is based on participation

• Participate in expert groups on the revision of the EU's biodiversity strategy, in particular the Biodiversity Action Plan on Agriculture

Activities:

After the workprogramme 2005 was adopted we decided to include the following activities in EEB work:

• Co-ordinate and strengthen the EEB Working Group on Agriculture, with two meetings during the year

• Continue the campaign started in 2003 for a profound reform of the agricultural policy, as laid down in Greener Fields, EEB's position paper (July 2002)

• Continue to co-ordinate the environmental NGO involvement in the official advisory committees on agriculture from the European Commission

• Informal and formal meetings with EC officials

• Exchange information about implementation of the reformed CAP in Member States

• Continue co-ordination with environment, animal welfare, health and consumers' organisations, resulting in co-ordinated activities at EU and national level, and possibly joint statements