MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2015-16
MOF Alm.del Bilag 337
Offentligt

Danish simplification proposals regarding the CAP

Policy matter/subject/issue

Weighting

factor for catch crops and short rotation coppice

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

In order to reduce and simplify the complex EFA

requirements for farmers the mandatory weighting factors

should be the same. Similar types of EFA (nitrogen-fixing

crops, catch crops and short rotation coppice) should have

the same value.

Farmers risk getting their green payment reduced as there is

a large risk that one of the two crops may outperform the

other. Also, it is difficult to control which again increases the

risk to the farmer.

Today, each greening requirement must be controlled at a

minimum rate of 5 %, which makes it impossible to carry out

only one control visit to a farmer and also increases the risk

for the timely payment for the farmer. It should be made

possible to perform the on- the-spot checks of all greening

requirements during the same inspection. Inspections

should be made similar to the inspections of cross

compliance, where everything that can possibly be

controlled at the time of inspection, is controlled.

Proposed solution

The mandatory weighting factors for catch crops and

short rotation coppice should be the same as for the

nitrogen-fixing crops.

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Short term

- concerns delecated act (EU) 639/2014, Annex II)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Abolish the requirement that EFA-catch crops must be

established as a mixture

Abolish requirement for establishing EFA-catch crops as a short term

mixture of crop spices.

- concerns delegated act (EU) 639/2014, Art. 45 (9)

Only one control visit for basic payment and greening

It should be possible to undertake similar inspections

short term

such as for cross compliance at the same time . Where

- concerns implementing act (EU) 809/2014, Art. 31

everything that can possibly be controlled at the time of

inspection is controlled.

Reduction of the control rate for greening

It should be possible for Member states as regards greening Member States discretion

to reduce the minimum level of on-the-spot checks carried

out each year to 3 %. There should be only one control rate

for the basic payment scheme and greening.

It is an administrative burden and superfluously to demand

that the EFA-layer should contain all potential types of EFAs

chosen by the Member State including non stable elements

like fallow land expected to remain for at least 3 years.

Delete this rule in the commissions guidance document

on the establishment of the EFA-layer referred to in

article 70 (2) of regulation (EU) 1306/2013

(DSCG/2014/31 Rev2-FINAL)

short term

- concerns implementing act (EU) No 809/2014, art. 36

EFA-layer with non stable elements

short term

- concerns the Commissions guidance document

DSCG/2014/31 Rev2-FINAL

Payment for young farmers

Payment for young farmers should also be granted to legal Clarify or delete the requirement regarding access to a

persons. However, the inclusion of legal persons as eligible legal person to the payment for young farmers.

young farmers sinificantly increases the complexity of the

scheme. The rules in the regulations are not designed to

legal persons which create ambiguities in the administration

of the payment.

medium term, concerns delegated act (EU) No 649/2014.

Art. 49

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Minimum size for EFA-areas

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

All areas even as small as 100 m2 may be included as EFA

(for instance fallow land and catch crops) and hence be

included. It is difficult for farmers to manage EFA-areas as

small as 0,01 ha correctly. A minimum size would not have a

negative effect on the fund or the purpose of greening

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

It should be possible to set a minimum size per type of

short term

EFA in a differentiated way and not only for areas eligible -concerns the Commissionens guidance document

for basic payments. It is difficult for farmers to manage DSCG/2014/32, section 2.2.3

EFA-areas as small as 0,01 ha correctly. A minimum size

up to 0,3 ha would not have a negative effect on the fund

or the purpose of greening

Members States should be authorised to deem animals Short term

eligible for the payment if the animal is correctly

-concerns delegated act (EU) 639/2014, Art. 53 (4)

identified and registered on the first day of a retention

period, e.g. that an animal can be eligible after a period,

provided the mistake has been corrected.

Eligibility of bovine animals for voluntary coupled support

(den har vi fået, det var en af de forenklingsforslag

Kommissionen gennemførte i foråret)

NAER: Kommissionen har imødekommet forslaget, idet

reglerne er ændret i den ønskede retning med forordning

(EU) nr. 2015/1385, som er ændring til forordning (EU) nr.

639/2014.

The Commission has just recently in an answer to a Member

State declared, that any animal, not correctly identified and

registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

is excluded from the payment of coupled support for its

lifetime, irrespective whether the mistake has been

corrected. The requirement will constraint trade in livestock,

as the purchaser will be responsible for the seller's fault.

This is far too restrictive compared to the legal position

situation up until the CAP reform. Members States should

have the possibility to apply the same eligibility criteria as

used until December 2014, i.e. be authorised to deem

animals eligible for the payment if the animal is correctly

identified and registered on the first day of a retention

period, e.g. that an animal can be eligible after a period,

provided the mistake has been corrected.

Over-declaration of areas

The current limit for acceptance of over-declaration of areas The limit should be increased to 0.5 ha.

is 0.1 ha [at applicant level]. Increasing this limit will reduce

the number of cases due to small area deviations, which are

an administrative burden for farmers and administration

medium Term

- concerns delegated act (EU) No 640/2014, art. 18(6)

The table of undue payments yet to be recovered at the end

The reporting requirements in Art. 29 (f) and Annex II and III

of the financial year

of regulation (EU) 908/2014 are extremely complex and

costly for the Member States to fulfil. One of the

requirements is even not in accordance with the

Commission’s requirements for book keeping in the paying

agencies (column V2). If the Commission requires

information of the recovered amounts within the financial

year this information should be extracted from the X-tables.

The reporting should alone include the annual entry and short/medium term

the annual exit. Therefore Annex II of regulation (EU)

- concerns Implementing Act 809/2014, Art. 29 (f) and

908/2014 must be simplified in order to remove all

Annex II and III

requirements related to undue payments recovered

within the financial year. Alternatively the new

requirements in column V2, W should be removed.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

A diminimis threshold for correction of payments

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Short/medium term

- concerns Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, Art. 10

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

The regulation on direct support (Article 10 of Regulation No An introduction of a diminimis threshold for minor

1307/2013) contains a provision on minimum payments

correction of payments should be introduced i.e. in

that require Member States to set minimum thresholds for regulation 1306/2013.

payment of direct aid, either in terms of area or in amount.

However, these provisions are only about the payments. If

the amount is subsequently adjusted in favor of the

beneficiary, the paying agencies are sometimes in a

situation where the correct amount is very, very small – only

a few cents or euros. In Denmark these small amounts have

litle or no impact on the beneficiary´s economy.

Greening reductions and sanctions should be more

proportional

The principle for reductions is very complicated and

disproportionate. A farmer risks large reductions of his

green payment even due to minor non-compliance.

The reductions and sanctions should be less severe for

medium term

instance by changing the use of factor 10 in case of non- - concerns delegated act (EU) No 640/2014, art. 25-28)

compliance with the EFA and crop diversification to

factor 4. Also, the rule for increased reduction after non-

compliance for three years should be repealed.

Organic farms as green by definition

Today, only fields farmed organicly during the entire

All fields with a planned forthcoming conversion that are long term

calender year are green by definition. This means that many part of an organic farm at the time of application should - concerns basic act (EU) 1307/2013, Art. 43 (11)

organic farms in practice need to be concerned about

be green by definition.

meeting the greening requirements. This is the case for

organic farmers renting land, where the rent might suddenly

end if for example the owner dies, as well as for organic

farmers converting new land during the calender year.

Financial discipline

Simplify the rules in order to carry over unused

appropriations in year n to financial year n+1 and earmarked

for the crisis reserve. This would make it possible to have a

lower adjustment rate for the farmers in year n+1 .

Amounts to be reimbursed to the beneficiaries in year

long term

N+1 following unused appropriations in year N should

- concerns basic act (EU) 1306/2013, art. 26

not be paid to the beneficiaries. Instead these

appropriations should be carried over to financial year

N+1 and earmarked for the reserve for crisis. Provided

that such appropriations are carried over, the paying

agencies need to apply a lower adjustment rate for the

beneficiaries of SPS year N+1. Furthermore, it is difficulet

for the farmer to understand the complicated rules on

financial disciplin implying relative small amounts being

dedeucted and added to his/her payments.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

A diminimis threshold for correction of payments

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

long term

-concerns basic act (EU) 1306/2013

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Member States can set minimum thresholds for payment of An introduction of a diminimis threshold for minor

direct aid, either in terms of area or in amount. However,

correction of payments should be introduced i.e. in

these provisions are only about the payments. If the amount regulation 1306/2013.

is subsequently adjusted in favor of the beneficiary, the

paying agencies are sometimes in a situation where the

correct amount is very, very small – only a few cents or

euros. In these cases, it would be preferable if the paying

agencies were not obliged to pay the amount, since it is

disproportionately expensive to administer.

Environmental sensitive permanent grassland

The environmental sensitive permanent grassland is now

specificly protected meaning that the environmental need

for maintaining other permanent grassland is reduced.

Abolish national requirement on maintenance of

permanent grassland.

long term

- concerns basic act (EU) No 1307/2013, art. 45(2)

Active farmer

No need in having a rule on active farmers regarding the

Delete the negative list or make it optional for Member

negative list. The land will be leased to somebody else only States.

resulting in administrative costs and burden for farmers and

administration with no effect.

The rule of crop diversification of holdings between 10-30

hectares can lead to the opposite effect of the intension of

this requirement. The requirement will result in structural

change towards larger holdings. Small holdings taken over

by larger holdings which overall comply with the

diversification demand meaning there will still only be sown

one crop on this land).

Also the requirement will increase the costs for farmers

without any environmental effect as there must be two

crops on the farm each year without any requirement for

crop rotation from year to year.

Abolish the 10-30 ha rule and make do with the

requirement above 30 hectares or assign Annex VIII

(average farm size of MS) in 1307/2013 with the

requirement so that all countries with an average farm

size over a certain level (e.g. 30 ha) are exempted from

10-30 ha rule.

long term

- concerns basic act (EU) No 1307/2013, art. 9(1)

Crops diversification

long term

- concerns basic act (EU) No 1307/2013, art. 44(1)

National reserve

There should be no obligation to let young farmers and new Make art. 30 (6) voluntary: “may” instead of “shall”.

farmers apply for entitlements (and get the

national/regional average payment) in the reserve. All land

will be covered by entitlements; hence entitlements should

be part of the private transactions. As agricultural land

decreases year after year, entitlements will be in excess of

demand – this will also make an obligatory use of the

reserve unnecessary.

long term

- concerns basic act (EU) No 1307/2013, art. 30(6)

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Proposed solution

It should be possible to make the direct payments to

farmers that are not selected for control.

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

long term

- concerns basic act (EU) No1306/2013, art. 75 (2)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

It should be possible to make the direct payments to farmers

The large amount of controls due to new elements of the

that are not selected for control

direct payment rules (as for instance active farmer, control

of yearly activity, crop diversification etc.) and the fact that

the on-the-spot checks may require additional re-visits,

makes it difficult to finish all controls as soon as previously,

meaning the payments would have to be delayed to all

farmers

Financial discipline

The franchise of 2000 € in relation to financial discipline

entails that the Member States contribute very differently to

financial discipline depending on the average size of their

holdings.

Fallow land

The current rules where fallow land covered by grass can

sometimes be used for EFA and sometimes not. This adds to

complexity. Additionally, it induces farmers to plough in

order to be sure they can use the areas as EFA.

The franchise of 2000 € should be abolished.

long term

- concerns basic act (EU) No 1307/2013 art. 8(1)

Label fallow land as arable land independent of plant

cover

long term

-concerns basic act (EU) 1307/2013, art. 4

Rural Development, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Revoke control of baseline conditions in connection with

OTSC related to RDP areasupport operations

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

According to Article 28 and 29 in REG 1305/13 the AECM-

and organic farming-support provided under RDP only cover

additional costs or income foregone beyond the baseline

including “other related mandatory requirements” and

Cross Compliance. MS are to control these baseline

conditions, and in cases of non-compliance, impose

sanctions in accordance with the regulation. Control of

these baseline conditions should be revoked from the RDP

control as it generates an additional administrative burden

and a dis-incentive for the farmer to apply for the PII-

support. It does not seem justified to include these extra

controls in the RDP control. As payments to farmers under

RD shall only cover requirements that go beyond the

“baseline conditions”, the need to carry out detailed checks

covering other baseline elements would not appear

justified. Further, the effect is that on some cross-

compliance requirements the control rate is much higher

than the 1% control rate set by article 68 (1) in 809/2014.

We ask for the wording of the article to be redrafted, so that

it is made clear that MS are not required also to verify

farmer´s compliance with the baseline condition related to

the RD operation, in connection with the RD OTS-check.

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

The following text amendment is suggested:

Short term (Art. 24 (2) REG 809/2014 and art. 35 (2) in REG

- in Article 24 (2), REG 809/2014: ”Member States shall 640/2014) (Guideline for art. 37(2), REG 809/2014)

ensure that compliance with all conditions applicable

established by Union law or laid down in relevant

national law and documents containing implementing

arrangements or by the rural development programme

can be checked according to a set of verifiable indicators

to be established by the Member States.”

- in Article 35 (2), REG 640/2014: “The support claimed

shall be refused or be withdrawn in full or in part where

the following commitments or other obligations are not

complied with:

1. commitments established in the rural development

programme; or

2. where relevant, other obligations of the operation

established by Union or national law or established in the

rural development programme, in particular public

procurement, State aid and other obligatory standards

and requirements.

- (The content of article 37 (2), REG 809/2014 could be

clearified in guideline documents on controls).

Allow new rural development commitments to replace old

commitments

Flexible support instruments

0 More flexibility than present to allow new rural

short term (art. 14 in REG 807/2014).

development commitments to replace old commitments

even if the new commitments in some aspects are less

strict

To ensure a second pillar capable of solving some of the

It should be possible to compensate the farmer through Short term (art. 30, REG 1305/2013)

greater environmental and climate challenges and providing both agri-environmental measures and investment

farm relevant support measures more flexible support

support for activities which are obligatory for the farmer

instruments should be introduced in the Rural Development to fulfil obligations in the nature, environment and

Regulation.

climate Regulations. This is especially the case when

these obligations derive from the EU Water Framework

and Natura 2000 directives and the EU Effort sharing

Decision on reduction of greenhouse gases outside the

Emission Trading Sectors.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Application of the principle of no double funding in relation

to the greening payment

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

As regards the No Double Funding principle (vis-à-vis

greening), no clear criteria has been put forward by the

COM for MS`s risk assessment of double funding. Vague

concepts (such as “similarity in commitments”) have been

advanced, but without any clear definition being provided.

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Review of COM guideline (Explanatory Document:

Short term (art.28 (6); art. 29 (4); art. 30 (8) in REG

Methods of the RD Premia Calculation):

1305/2013. art. 9 in REG 807/2014)

DK suggests a more rigorous method and approach

applied for the calculation of payment deductions, for

example along the lines of the “baseline approach”,

where it is the commitments per se (as defined legally,

e.g. minimum standards, mandatory requirements),

which are to be taken into consideration for the

calculation.

This would:

- minimise the risk of unjustified deductions made to

farmer´s payments

- provide more clarity and simplification in work related

to the calculation of support premiums.

Preferably

the No Double Funding principle (vis-á-vis greening)

should not be applied to Organic Farming.

Repeal the “other controls” in Cross Compliance

According to the regulation, the PA and control bodies

responsible for cross compliance controls (CC) are required

to notify all cases of non-compliance with CC rules that they

become aware of, incl. those that have been determined or

reported to them in connection with other type of controls.

These other types of controls may cover checks and controls

decided nationally, without necessarily any link to the CAP.

Differences in national control systems may result in varying

levels of identified cases of CC non-compliance, due to these

“other controls”.

Amendment to article 38 (5), REG 640/2014:

Short term (art. 38 (5), REG 640/2014)

The lack of common standards for “other controls”

induces varying approaches to CC sanctions. This is

increases the burdens on farmers in some MS. To put

farmers on an equal footing in the MS, we suggest the

reference to “other controls” aborted, i.e. the following

text in

article 38 (5) erased:

“For the purposes of this Chapter, non-compliances shall

be deemed to be ‘determined’ if they are established as

a consequence of any kind of controls carried out in

accordance with this Regulation or after having been

brought to the attention of the competent control

authority or, where applicable, the paying agency, in

whatever other way.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Simplified cost options

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

short term

- Commission’s Guidance on Simplified Cost Options,

EGESIF_14-0017 cf. Art. 67-68 of Regulation (EU) No

1303/2013

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Simplified cost options are promoted as a measure to

Risks for financial corrections when applying simplified

simplify administration of project support. However, due to cost options for Rural Development measures (EAFRD

complexity their application invokes a number of risks which non- IACS) should be clarified.

are not yet clear, neither from European legal texts, nor

from newly issued guidelines from the Commission.

Therefore, it should be clarified how the risks of errors can

be mitigated. This should be especially seen in the context

of how such options and their application at the level of

beneficiaries will be audited in the future by the

Commission and the European Court of Auditors.

Simplify the procedure for reoccurrence

There are several differences in the measures and eligibility

conditions between the programming periods. Therefore,

the present provision regulating reoccurrence has a very

broad scope. In order to increase the legal certainty for the

beneficiaries and simplify the administration for control

authorities, the provision should be changed reflecting that

reoccurrence covers 1) 4 years, 2) a similar non-compliance,

3) contracts within the same programming period, and 4)

the same measure.

Amendment to article art.35 (3), section 5 in REG

short term

640/2014:

(art.35 (3), section 5 in REG 640/2014)

“The reoccurrence shall depend on whether similar non-

compliances have been found earlier during the last four

years or during the whole programming period 2014-

2020 in case of the same beneficiary and the same

measure

within the same programming period

or type

of operation or in the case of the programming period

2007-2013, the similar measure.”

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Revoke the requirement to inform the public about the

support obtained from the EAFRD

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

The obligation to place posters and advertise on websites

with information about the operation and financial support

from EU does not add value to the operation, but only

constitute an extra burden for the beneficiary.

Proposal 1:

We propose to abolish the requirement to place posters and

advertise on websites if a beneficiary receives more than

10.000 EUR from the EU regulations (REG 808/2014 Art.13

(2) and Annex III, part 1, no.2).

Proposal 2:

Alternatively, we seek a modification that will enhance the

proportionality in the requirement and limit the

administrative burden to farmers with very substantial

premiums. Regarding area based operations, we propose

that the obligation should apply only in case the annual

premium exceeds the 10.000 EUR threshold.

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Annex III part 1, no.2.2 (b) should be changed:

short term

Proposal 1:

(art.13 (2) and Annex III, part 1, no.2 in REG 808/2014)

“(b) for operations not falling under point (c) the total

public support of which exceeds EUR 10 000 and

depending on the operation funded (for example for

operations under Article 20 on village renewal or LEADER

operations), at least one poster with information about

the operation (minimum size A3), highlighting the

financial support from the Union, at a location readily

visible to the public, such as the entrance area of a

building.”

Proposal 2:

“(b) for operations not falling under point (c) the total

public support of which exceeds EUR 10 000 and

depending on the operation funded (for example for

operations under Article 20 on village renewal or LEADER

operations), at least one poster with information about

the operation (minimum size A3), highlighting the

financial support from the Union, at a location readily

visible to the public, such as the entrance area of a

building.

Regarding operations based on Art. 21 (1) a)

and b), Art. 28-31, 33 and 34 of REG 1305/2013 the limit

of 10.000 EUR is per year.

“

Repeal the concept of “intentional non-compliance” (cross

compliance)

Revoking Cross Compliance from Pillar II

It is left to the MS to conceptualise the notion of intentional

non-compliance to be used to in cases of cross-compliance

infringements.

The lack of common standards leads to different approaches

to CC penalties in the MS.

Article 92 asserts that for beneficiaries under Rural

Development, alike beneficiaries under Direct Payment,

article 91 (on cross compliance penalties) shall apply. It does

not seem justified to include Rural Development

beneficiaries under article 92. Support provided under RDP

may only cover additional costs or income foregone that go

beyond minimum standards, and CC

In the interest of ensuring equal conditions for farmers in medium term

the MS, it is suggested that the concept of “intentional

(art. 40, REG 640/2014, and art. 99 (3) REG 1306/2013)

non-compliance” be aborted and withdrawn from the

Horizontal regulation.

Amendment to article 92, REG 1306/2013:

medium term (art. 92, REG 1306/2013)

In the interest of administrative simplification, the

following text is suggested erased:

“Article 91 shall apply to beneficiaries receiving direct

payments under Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013,

payments under Articles 46 and 47 of Regulation (EU) No

1308/2013 and the annual premia under points (a) and

(b) of Article 21(1), Articles 28 to 31, 33 and 34 of

Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Rigid baseline rules for non-productive investments

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Art. 30 (REG 1305/2013) provides basis for granting area

based payments to compensate farmers for mandatory

requirements linked to the WFD. The RD regulation does not

provide basis for EAFRD-financed investment support linked

to mandatory conditions, although linked to WFD-

implementation.

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Amendment to article 17 of REG 1305/2013, with text

medium term (art. 17, REG 1305/2013)

inserted, asserting that investment expenditures linked

to disadvantages as a result of implementation of

Directives (e.g. WFD) shall be eligible for EAFRD support.

One-year contracts

Farmers should be provided with the possibility to sign

yearly, renewable contracts under the AECM and organic

farming measures (art. 28-29). In the previous programming

period, farmers responded positively to the art. 68-

measures (article 68, REG 73/2009), the shorter contract

period reducing the risk of financial reimbursement of

previous years´ support.

Further, one-year contract are considerably less

administrative burdensome to manage (fewer contract

adjustments, follow up tasks for the MA/PA)

Provide Member States with the option to grant 1-year

renewable contracts to first- time applicants under

AECM and organic farming measures. With the aim at

better responding to farmer demands and reducing the

administrative burdens (linked to the management of

multiannual contracts). The tool is giving MS more

discretion to determine the duration of AECM and

organic farming commitments.

medium term (art. 28 (5) and 29 (3), REG 1305/2013)

Certification, control and labelling system

At present, the tie between Annex 1 to the Treaty and

eligible beneficiaries under the Rural Development

Regulation constitutes an obstacle for Member States as it

does not take sufficiently into account that agriculture and

related sectors are becoming increasingly diversified. Thus,

the guiding principle on what should be eligible for higher

support rates should be the overall objective of the measure

rather than a narrow focus on agricultural products as

defined in Annex 1 to the Treaty.

For example, agricultural products can be used for

medium term

renewable energy production such as biogas, which at

present falls outside Annex 1 to the Treaty. However, it

should be possible to use the Rural Development

Regulation to support the agricultural sectors legitimate

desire to participate to the overall reduction in CO2

emissions and at the same time underpin their search for

new earnings. It should not matter what the final

destination of the biogas is, whether it is used at the

individual farm, whether it is used in the public energy

supply, or whether it is used in a larger enterprise as a

part of their individual energy set-up.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

A lean and flexible administrative set-up for RDP

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

A lean and flexible administrative set-up is needed for the

RDP which pays due regard to the principle of subsidiarity

when it comes to the utilisation of the funds from the

EAFRD.

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Less specific measure rules in REG 1305/2013 should

medium term

leave Member States more flexibility to design schemes

- Concerns Regulation 1305/2013, art. 9 and Regulation

that can help pursue appropriate goals.

1303/2013, art. 19 and art. 21

Also, it seems unnecessary to have administrative

sections in the programme. To cut red tape these

sections can be left out. In addition, the two concepts “Ex

ante conditionalities” in Article 9 of Regulation (EU)

1305/13 and Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 1303/2013,

and “performance framework” established for the

purpose of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 1303/2013 seem

to be unnecessary additional administrative layers for

programme implementation and could be left out.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Certification, control and labelling system

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Article 16(1) and (2) in the Rural development regulation

establishes:

“Quality schemes for agricultural products, and foodstuffs

1. Support under this measure shall cover new participation

by farmers and groups of farmers in:

(a) quality schemes established under the following

Regulations and provisions:

[…]

2. Support under this measure may also cover costs arising

from information and promotion activities implemented by

groups of producers in the internal market, concerning

products covered by a quality scheme receiving support in

accordance with paragraph 1.”

Whereas it is appropriate to limit the support eligibility to

certified producers under a recognized quality scheme as

outlined in paragraph (1), it seems complicated and

unfounded to link the eligibility in relation to paragraph (2)

to a requirement that the EU must have supported the

certification /control of producers of the scheme covering

the products concerned by the promotion activities. - For

instance, Denmark has an effective nationwide government-

funded system for certification, inspection and labeling in

the organic field.

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

A government’s choice to manage the certification,

long term

control and labelling system and carry the costs itself,

- Concerns Regulation 1305/2013, art. 16

should not put it in a disadvantaged situation with regard

to the possibility of obtaining support for promotion of

organic products under the RDR Article 16 (2). On the

contrary, it should be considered quite sufficient that the

Member State bears or pays part of or all of the control

and or certification costs. – All the more so, as this would

also save the EU-budget of some resources.

Furthermore, it should be clarified that trade and

intertrade organisations representing groups of certified

producers are also eligible under paragraph 2. These

organisations represents the producers who produce

under a recognized quality scheme and would be the

most competent to carry out the information and

promotional activities and thereby ensure the best use of

funds and the most successful projects.

Introduction of tolerance levels in the activation of revision

clauses

MS are required to activate revision clauses for area related

RD contracts, if amendments are made to relevant

minimum requirements or mandatory standards (e.g. on

pesticides, fertilizers, cross compliance etc.) (art. 48, 1.

paragraph). MS are required to do so in all cases, regardless

of the impact of the amendment on support levels.

Adjusting contracts using revision clauses can prove time-

consuming and burdensome for the farmers.

The tolerance level could be determined on the basis of Long term. (art. 48/REG 1305/2013)

the calculated income foregone/ additional costs related

to the specific change in minimum

requirements/mandatory standards, which is then

compared to overall income foregone/ additional costs

related to support commitment as a whole.

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Non-application of payment withdrawals in case of minor

over-declaration

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Art. 54 (3) in REG 1306/2013 asserts that Member State,

when duly justified, and for undue payments less than EUR

100, may decide not to pursue recovery of the amounts.

Indeed in some cases, amount might be so small, that

pursuing recovery would come at too excessive costs,

running counter principles of cost-effectiveness.

Art. 54 (3) applies at the level of the single beneficiary.

Establishing if the undue payment received by a beneficiary

is above or below the EUR 100-threeshold is not always

straightforward: the farmer might have applied for different

types of RD contracts on his holding. For each contract,

there might be identified several minor elements of non-

compliances, each of which need to be assessed and

“priced”. Only then, when aggregating all these individually

calculated “priced” non-compliances, are you able to

determine the total undue payment received by the

beneficiary, and check whether it is above or below the

EUR 100-threeshold.

The very calculation procedure, necessary for the threshold

check, renders it complicated to use art. 54 (3).

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Building on article 54 (3) and in view of simplification, we Long term (Art. 54 (3) in REG 1306/2013 )

propose that steps be taken to define an additional

tolerance level, measured in hectares, as an alternative

criteria in cases of minor non-compliance, for which it

would be justified not to precede to payment recoveries.

This could simplify the administration related to recovery

of payment of minor cases of non-compliance.

Single CMO, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Promotion scheme

Clear and fast responses from the body mandated by the

The implementing act and/or guidelines should establish

Commission to the proposing organisations must be

rules on maximum response time and responsible

ensured, including as regards multi-programmes. A long

contact officials for the Member States in the mandated

response time could complicate things for the proposing

body etc.

entity and in worst case bring an entire programme to a

stop.

There is an ever growing focus on PGO/PGI products as

Productions and areas of comparable size should be

regards e.g. access to EU-support or in trade negotiations. treated in the same way. Against this background, it

When the industry explains why – in spite of this fact – they seems particularly important to take this opportunity to

hardly apply for GI’s, they tend to refer to the GI area as non- simplify the rules to the effect that the achievement of

accessible and the regulatory framework as non-

PGO/PGI’s become accessible for the agro-food sectors

transparent. It seems necessary to ensure increased

of all Member States. The requirements must be clear

accessibility and transparency of the quality schemes.

and transparent.

short term

- Concerns Implementing act and/or guidelines regarding

Regulation 1144/2014

EU-support schemes, trade negotiations and EU’s official

protected designations

short term

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Marketing standards in general

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

short/medium term

- concerns a number of regulations om marketing

standards in different sectors

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Denmark supports the proposal to seek a more horizontal

Harmonise and simplify rules regarding marketing

approach on the marketing standards, aiming at simplifying standards. Evaluate and consider possible repeal of

the standard setting, details and improving flexibility.

certain marketing standards.

Denmark sees a need for evaluating the necessity of and

possibly repeal certain marketing standards. We therefore

propose to give priority to first categorising marketing

standards which should be kept and which should be

possibly repealed.

EU norms and standards for fresh fruit and vegetables (Reg.

543/2011) and unripened bananas (Reg. 1333/2011) should

preferably be left to the industry to define and

administerate.

The regulation (Reg. 543/2011 (the norms itself and several

articles)) constitutes a hindrance as regards policy

development on food waste reduction and the

requirements regarding trade documentation (tracing) is

outdated (Reg. 543/2011, art. 5).

Repeal the specific regulation on quality norms and

standards for fresh fruit, vegetables and bananas and

basically leave it to the industry to set up private codes

and norms, based on the UN-ECE norms and standards.

If this proposal does not meet general support then

Denmark proposes to give priority to adjusting,

upgrading and simplifying the EU norms and standards

on fresh fruit and vegetables in order to achieve the

following:

- More flexibility, allowing Member States to accept that

products, which does not meet the norms and standards,

to be delivered under specific conditions in order to

reduce food waste.

- Upgrading to match todays invoicing/suppliers

documentary systems within the industry and study of

and alignment with labeling/documentary requirements

within other EU legislation in order to recognize tracing

information from different existing sources and thereby

reduce administrative burdens.

Marketing standards for fresh fruit, vegetables and bananas

short/medium term

- concerns Implementing Act 543/2011 and Implementing

Act 1333/2011

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Marketing standards for poultry

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

It is of paramount importance that rules are not used as a

protectionist tool in the European production of poultry

meat.

The regulation (the norms themselves and several articles),

is outdated after several decades in place. It constitutes a

hindrance for business development and innovation and for

the development of new products and a broader variety in

the production.

Especially the rigid rules on marketing and certain

definitions are severe obstacles to trade, innovation and

consumer choices (eg. Reg. 543/2008, art. 11 and 12).

Proposed solution

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

EU norms and standards for poultry meat should partly short/medium term

be left to the industry to define and administerate and be

- concerns Commission regulation 543/2008

supported by Commission guidelines.

Adjust, upgrade and simplify the EU norms and standards

on poultry meat in order to:

• Increase flexibility for the business to innovate in new

products and production solutions.

• Introduce less rigid rules on marketing of products in

order to offer a broader product mix in the consumer

choice.

• Eliminate or simplify the product definitions in order to

reduce administrative burdens where necessary

Abolish "nil" reports

"Nil" notifications create unnessesary administrative

burden.

Relevant regulations should be revised and obligation to short/medium term

make "nil" notifications should be abolished.

Import licences

Issuing of import licences represents a heavy administrative Moving of not very often used tariff quotas to DG-

medium term

burden for national administrations and enterprises.

TAXUD’s first-come, first- serve principle basis without a

- concerns Regulation 1308/2013, art. 184-188

licence. Removing licences will reduce administrative

burdens for administrations and enterprises.

More simple and targeted crisis measures, including

abolition of export refunds and

simplification/integration/merging together of public

intervention and private storage.

long term

- concerns Regulation 1308/2013, art. 8-21, art. 196-204,

art. 219-221

Safeguard measures (public intervention, private storage,

export refunds)

Public intervention, private storage, export refunds are

safeguard measures to be deployed in specific crisis

situation. This requires that paying agencies maintain a

necessary administrative capacity to be able to implement

the measures in case of crisis. This is a difficult task to fulfil,

when measures are not applied on a regular basis.

Other

MOF, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 337: Udkast til brev fra udvalget til kommissær Phil Hogan vedr. forenkling af den fælles landbrugspolitik

Policy matter/subject/issue

Clear target for the relative share of flat-rate corrections.

Maximum ceiling of 30 percent.

Description of the issue/Justification/Reasoning

The Commission has introduced new documents on key and

ancilliary controls as well as a new guideline on the

calculation on financial corrections. The European Court of

Auditors has in its Special Report No. 7 from 2010 (point 67)

emphasised the Commissions extensive use of flat-rate

corrections. It even calculated the share of flat-rate

corrections at 90 per cent of the total value of corrections.

Also the European Parliament urged at that time the

Commission to decrease its use of flat rate corrections. We

are aware that the rules on clearance of accounts have been

changed in order to give the Member States a better

opportunity to document the risk to the Fund.

Nevertheless, when we see the interconncection between

the new documents we still fear that they will lead to a

continued high use of flat-rate corrections.

Proposed solution

Denmark urges the Commission to set a clear target for

the relative share of flat-rate corrections to toal

corrections for 2014-2020. We would like to propose a

maximum ceiling of 30 pecent.

Timing of solution (short, medium og long term)

short term

- concerns Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, Art. 52 and

Delegated act No. 907/2014, Art. 12

Direct Payments, together with the corresponding elements in the Horizontal regulation

Simplificcation of the audit set-up and the establishing of one

common EU based certifying body

One common EU based certifying body should be

long term

established. It should be managed by the Commission or

the European Court of Auditors. The common certifying

body should certify the annual accounts of all the paying

agencies. This enables a uniform annual certification and

evaluation of the paying agencies and the payments

made under EAGF and EAFRD. Besides a unified

certification, the common certifying body will also

eliminate the need for audit missions carried out by the

Commission and the European Court of Auditors. The

need for national audit might also be reduced. Finally,

the calculation of the error rates in the respective

Member States could be standardised