Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
434-439)
Mr Jiri Sir and Mr Lukas Visek
5 MARCH 2009
Q434
Chairman:
Thank you very much for finding the time to come
and help us with our inquiry.
Mr Sir: It is a pleasure for us to speak
to you.
Q435 Chairman:
It is particularly kind of you given that you are the Presidency
at the moment, and it is helpful for us, if you do not mind, to
get the perspectives that you bring as the Czech Republic but
also, obviously, as the Presidency, so thank you very much. We
are a Sub-Committee of the House of Lords. We are conducting an
inquiry into the LFA scheme and its revision. This is an evidence-taking
session and a note will be taken of the evidence you give us.
That will be circulated to you in a few days' time and you can
correct and amend it if any slips or mistakes have crept in. First
of all it would be helpful to us if you could outline how, as
the Presidency, you intend to take forward discussions on the
review and where you expect to get to by the end of your period.
Mr Sir: Thank you for these interesting
questions and, of course, thank you very much for sending us the
questions beforehand. It was really useful. You have chosen an
extremely interesting topic, the LFAs, a topic which is very technical
but to a certain degree political. We had hoped that the Commission
would present the proposals in 2008 but this did not materialise
so now the Commission will be submitting not proposals but a communication,
so it is a bit different than some time ago. Currently I can tell
you that the Czech Presidency expects the presentation of the
European Commission's communication on the review of the Less
Favoured Areas scheme to the Agricultural Council in April. It
will take place on 23 or 24 April, and consequently the working
party F2, which deals with rural development issues, will commence
its activities. We have planned for two or three meetings at the
level of the working party and two meetings of the special committee
on agriculture where discussion will take place. Of course, first
the Commission will have to present the communication and then
we will hold discussions among the Member States in advance of
preparing the June Council meeting where we hope we will be able
to submit conclusions to the Council and get some agreement. I
am sure you know that it is not always possible to receive the
support of all the Member States which is necessary for the Council
conclusions, so we are realistic but we have to be sufficiently
ambitious so we hope for Council conclusions on this issue and
we will do our best to get them. Anyway, for the working party
work the aim is to explain all the criteria and technicalities
and consequently to encourage the Member States to produce in
the future a map of the other LFAs in their territories which
would contribute to a homogeneous map of the other LFAs in EU-27.
To the best of our knowledge there is general consensus on the
need for a response to the European Court of Auditors' critical
report of 2003. This agreement, I would say, was clear from the
Member States' discussion at the Council in 2005 when rural development
regulation 1698/2005 was agreed and adopted. The Member States
also agreed that the new delimitation of the LFAs should be done
on the basis of clear criteria which, of course, is the wish of
the European Court of Auditors, so this is one of the basic parts
and principles and the criteria should be verifiable with regard
to natural handicaps. Of course, the opinions of the individual
Member States may differ, mainly as regards the threshold values
we have designated to the other LFAs, but this is for a debate
which may come at a later stage, and there will be some requests
for flexibility at the national level, we are quite sure. This
is basically the framework of the Czech Presidency and you see
that there will not be too much time for the Czech Presidency
to work on this very complicated issue but in any case we want
to hold an interesting and constructive debate to help push this
matter ahead a bit and get some tangible results.
Q436 Chairman: I think that is very interesting,
what you say about the degree of consensus and the clear criteria,
but also the pressure to have some degree of flexibility at Member
State level. I think it is fair to say that the evidence we have
picked up so far, particularly from perhaps some of the older
Member States, comes down very heavily in favour of, "Let's
try to keep things as much like they are at the moment",
minimum change.
Mr Sir: Frankly speaking, it would be
a great thing for the Czech Republic as a Member State if things
remained as they are, but we have joined the EU knowing that things
may change and, unlike some others, we are quite an open nation,
not one that would be commonly understood by others, and it may
seem strange but we are open to discussion on changes to the criteria.
We, of course, will try to find criteria which will not disturb
terribly the Less Favoured Area farmers, that is for sure, but
we cannot say, "Let's set aside the European Court of Auditors'
report and let's do the business the old, usual way". As
a Member State we are open in this regard.
Q437 Earl of Caithness: Do you anticipate
that the ongoing review of the EU budget, which inevitably will
take into account the future of the Common Agricultural Policy,
would impact on Less Favoured Areas and, if so, how and to what
extent?
Mr Sir: The Court of Auditors' report
shows that the main reason for the revision of the LFAs is to
justify the related payments. There is a focus on transparency
and comparability of the criteria which are used by individual
Member States for the designation of the LFAs and in those documents
there is no explicit statement that the objective of the LFAs
is to reduce financial resources earmarked for the Less Favoured
Areas, so from this point of view it is more a technical exercise.
Anyway, the delimitation of the other LFA areas is a long-term
process, which indeed was initiated in 2005, so I would say there
is no realistic ambition from the Czech Presidency and no ambition
from the Commission communication that we complete a review of
the LFA scheme under our Presidency, so it will have to go on.
In any case, we see it indeed more as a technical exercise which
has been prepared and decided before. We do not see a clear link
with the review of the European budget so we take the European
Court of Auditors' report and reasons as a basis for the change
of the LFAs, not the budgetary review, I would say. It is very
difficult to anticipate if there is any impact or inter-connection
or relation between the two things, the LFA revision and the budget
review; rather we would say that it is a technical issue which
should be able to take place without the budget review. From our
point of view I would say that for the Czech Presidency, which
will not be dealing with the budget review anyway, we do not see
anything for us as a Presidency.
Q438 Chairman: So you see them as two
distinct exercises?
Mr Sir: Yes.
Q439 Lord Cameron of Dillington: What
do you see as the objectives of the LFA payment scheme? What does
the taxpayer get out of it and where does it fit in with the rest
of farm payments, the single farm payment and the agri-environment
scheme?
Mr Sir: This is a very interesting question,
I have to say. You might have heard about what our minister said
in the European Parliament. He said quite clearly that he wants
to discuss the CAP also from the point of view of the efficient
use of taxpayers' money and he declared that he would like to
be able to prove to taxpayers that the money which is allocated
to the CAP is well spent.
|
