Breadcrumbs
Matters arising from the 30th meeting of the Countryside Agency
COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL LOTTERY REVIEW
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport are reviewing the National Lottery. They want to know how best to develop and enhance Lottery policy and involve the ticket buying public in how the money for the good causes is spent. The review covers four broad areas:
- making Lottery more responsive to what communities want/need
- ensuring fair distribution of funds
- managing the challenge of funding
- making delivery more efficient/effective.
Board members were consulted on the Agency's response to the review. The Countryside Agency's main recommendations were that:
- all the Lottery distributors should "rural proof" their policies to ensure that rural people are getting a fair share of Lottery funds. Currently this is not happening for the Arts, Sport and Health, Education and Environment good causes. There is too large a gap between levels of Lottery funding in rural areas compared to the Great Britain average.
- the application process for strategic partners like the Countryside Agency should be improved to allow projects to be brought forward more quickly. Measures such as a certification scheme, would allow applications from proven partners to be streamlined. The same principle could be applied to projects which have gone through rigorous community participation (in the same way as market towns "healthchecks"). These projects could be "fast tracked", and join the application process at a later stage, thus saving administrative time and resources.
AP/02/13 UPDATE ON DEFRA'S STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE FARMING AND FOOD AND CAP REFORM
DEFRA are currently redrafting the document and are working towards a pre Christmas launch.
CAP Reform
Attached is a briefing note setting out what is known about the agreement reached between France and Germany regarding CAP reform
At a recent meeting with DEFRA, it was stressed that the UK remains committed to achieving CAP reform through the MTR. There was no further information about the detail of the deal reached between Germany and France. It was noted however, that the effect of imposing a budget ceiling on the CAP at 2006 levels, with only inflationary changes subsequently, would not be known until it was clear, through the MTR process, what exactly would be included in the CAP budget by 2006.
The exchange of views regarding the ideas contained in the MTR discussion document continues. Formal proposals are not now expected until December 2002 at the earliest and possibly even January 2003. This makes it unlikely that there will be agreement until the end of next year. Given that areas such as decoupling will be complex to put into practice, implementation of any reform is unlikely to occur before January 2005.
28 October 2002
There is some confusion about the implications of the Brussels summit on 24 and 25 October and the unexpected decision on the future of the CAP. It is clear that the summit adopted a formula based on the deal struck by German Chancellor Schröder and French President Chirac whose agreement resolved a long running stand-off about paying for EU enlargement. The leaders were warned that failure to reach a common view of the budget for enlargement, particularly for the CAP, could delay the membership of 10 new countries. Chirac and Schröder took the initiative and met privately for a third time before the start of the Brussels summit in an attempt to bridge the gap between their positions on farm subsidies. Germany made extensive concessions to France, removing its objections to direct payments for enlargement countries from 2004 and accepting the continuation of a very sizeable Pillar 1 budget for the CAP from 2001 to 2013. This seemed close to what France had been demanding all along: that the CAP should be reformed after 2006, when the financial perspectives agreed in Berlin in 1999 expire. How this can be reconciled to the agreement between the SPD and Green Party in Germany on agricultural policy is more difficult to understand.
Chirac waited to go public with this negotiating ploy until after the Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty (see Briefing Note dated 25 October 2002), which provided the institutional framework for EU Enlargement. Had last Sunday's vote gone against the Treaty, then the CAP reform issue would have been submerged in the debate about postponing enlargement. However, Chirac has been working hard to delay the overhaul of the CAP until the next EU budget round in 2006, because French farmers are still its biggest beneficiaries.
The minutes of the summit are very brief but the main agreement on agriculture is:
· acceptance of the Commission's proposals for phasing in direct payments to the enlargement countries, beginning at 25% of the EU level in 2004, rising to 40% in 2007, and thereafter in 10% increments to 2013.
· there is a curious statement that "the small farmers scheme should not apply". Presumably this means within the new Member States, once within the EU.
· overall expenditure on Pillar 1 should not exceed the ceiling already agreed for the CAP in 2006, rising at 1% per annum over the period 2007 to 2013 (nonetheless, the decision is prefaced by the statement "without prejudice to future decisions on the CAP and the financing of the European Union after 2006").
· a statement to the effect that the needs of farmers in disadvantaged regions of the present EU should be safeguarded and multifunctional agriculture maintained throughout Europe.
This agreement can of course be re-examined in 2006 by which time many more Member States will be sitting at the table. It does not apply to expenditure under Pillar 2 of the CAP. It leaves the Mid-Term Review of the CAP in limbo. At first sight there is nothing to prevent the Commission with pushing forward with its proposals; Fischler may make a statement shortly. However, the context for modulation has altered dramatically and this now looks much less attractive politically. Germany has secured a modest level of degressivity from 2007 onwards but at the price of accepting a substantial Pillar 1 for years to come. Decoupling could still proceed and this is a crucial question for the Commission now.
The enlargement package has raised the prospect of Britain having to defend its £2bn budget rebate after 2006. Margaret Thatcher negotiated the rebate in 1984 to compensate Britain for its excessive contributions to overall spending. This stemmed from the relatively low British benefits from CAP payments due to the comparatively low number of farmers in the UK. Chirac suggested last week that the rebate should be used to help fund the costs of EU enlargement, although this was not supplied by the EU's budget Commissioner, Michaele Schreyer.
A fuller report on the summit conclusions will be circulated in a Briefing Note on Friday.
David Baldock/ Katrine Nørlyng
© Copyright IEEP London
