DG Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural Comissão Europeia Comunicação sobre o futuro da PAC «A PAC no horizonte 2020: enfrentar os futuros desafios da alimentação, dos recursos naturais e do território» DG Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural Comissão Europeia

Índice 1. Contexto 2. A PAC hoje 3. Orientações futuras

1. Contexto Contexto da reforma Quadro orçamental termina em 2013 Entrada em vigor do tratado de Lisboa Necessidade de alinhar PAC pós-2013 com Estratégia Europa 2020 A comunicação Reflecte os desafios identificados no debate publico e delineia opções Lança debate interinstitucional e consulta pública para análise de impacto Prepara propostas legislativas e análise de impacto

Uma política substancialmente reformada… … com melhor desempenho… 2. A PAC hoje Uma política substancialmente reformada… … com melhor desempenho… Apoio desligado e condicionalidade Mecanismos de intervenção no mercado reduzido Desenvolvimento rural reforçado Sem excedentes e mais competitividade Eficiência nas transferências Mais sustentabilidade

Despesa e trajectória de reforma da PAC (preços constantes a 2007) UE-10 UE-12 UE-15 UE-25 UE-27 Sources: European Commission - DG Agriculture and Rural Development (Units I.1/L.1) and DG Economic and Financial Affairs (AMECO database)/Eurostat Updated: 18.10.2010 Annual expenditure, in 2007 constant prices. This graph shows how the CAP has evolved through the evolution of the CAP expenditure. In the 80s the expenditure was mainly due to price support through market mechanisms (intervention and export subsidies). In the end of the 80s this expenditure in market mechanisms boosts due to the agricultural surpluses. In 1992 there is the first big shift, due to the Mac Sharry reform. The market mechanisms (in red and yellow) are reduced and replaced by direct payments (in blue). These payments were paid per hectare or per animal. Thus price support is replaced by producer support. Finally, spending on rural development measures also increased (in purple). In 2003, one can see the impacts of the 2003 reform, with direct payments shifting to decoupled payments (green). Payments are no longer paid per ha or per animal but paid in function of what the farmer received in a reference period. Spending in rural development also increases. Spending as been stabilized and despite the successive enlargements, the overall spending as a share of the GDP has actually decreased in nominal terms: 0.5% of GDP in the 80s to 0.4% now (graphic line). Stable expenditure level since mid-1990s despite enlargements Significant shift from market expenditure to direct payments and increased expenditure for rural development Decreasing share of CAP in GDP. However, slightly increasing in 2009 due to economic crisis (-5% in GDP of EU-27) Fonte: Comissão Europeia – DG Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural

3. As orientações futuras: porquê uma reforma? Para dar resposta aos desafios Desafios económicos Segurança alimentar Volatilidade dos preços Crise económica

Tendências recentes nos preços de mercado de alguns produtos Sources: European Commission - DG Agriculture and Rural Development (Agriview Market prices and Circa) World Bank - Pink Sheets Updated: 12.1.2011 Volatility of agricultural market prices is increasing: Since 2005, EU market prices are fluctuating more for the most part of agricultural commodities. However, this variation would be bigger with world prices and in dollars. Since last year, the term "farm price crisis", and then "food crisis", has been used interchangeably to describe the dramatic increase, and then the dramatic decline of farm commodity prices. Rarely a day passes without some reference to price developments in commodity markets; clearly not just in agricultural commodities. Some days prices will increase, others will see prices decline; yet regardless of the direction, it is the extent of variability in price movements that has been the main concern of farmers across the world. Clearly, it is not the presence of price variability as such that is of concern. This has been a permanent feature of agricultural markets, driven by the simple fact that the discontinuous, weather-dependent farm production interacts with the continuous, daily demand for food. What has been of concern is the magnitude that farm price variations have taken in recent years, and the fact that sometimes wide price swings seem to be linked more to parallel developments in all commodity markets than to the fundamentals of each individual market. As a result of this development, the signal that farmers receive about market direction becomes unclear, and often distorted, and hampers their capacity to respond. Fontes: Comissão Europeia (DG Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural) e Banco Mundial

Disparidade entre preços de venda e custos … Source: Eurostat 8 8

… agricultura, fertilizantes e energia… Fertilisers + 163 % Energy + 223 % Agriculture + 50 % Source: World Bank. Composition: Beverages, food and agricultural raw materials. 9

…e rendimento agrícola Source: Eurostat 10 10

3. Porquê uma reforma? Para dar resposta aos desafios Desafios económicos Desafios ambientais Desafios territoriais Segurança alimentar Volatilidade dos preços Crise económica Emissões de gases com efeito de estufa Preservação de recursos Vitalidade das zonas rurais Diversidade da agricultura da UE Equidade e equilíbrio do apoio Contributo para a estratégia Europa 2020

3. Quais são os objectivos da reforma? Desafios economicos Desafios ambientais Desafios territoriais Gestão sustentável dos recursos naturais e acção climática Desenvolvimento territorial equilibrado Produção Alimentar viável Resposta comum da EU é necessária 12

3. Que instrumentos de política? Baseados numa estrutura de dois pilares Mais orientados aos objectivos Pagamentos directos Redistribuição Melhor orientação: Pagamento base uniforme Pagamentos directos mais “verdes” Areas com limitaçoes naturais especificas Pagamentos ligados Limitação dos pagamentos Apoio aos pequenos agricultores

Pagamentos directos médios por superfície potencialmente elegível Pagamentos directos (em 2016) – limites líquidos em plena aplicação Sources: Net ceilings = ‘gross amounts minus (modulation and transfers, as well as cotton and POSEI)’ - European Commission - DG Agriculture and Rural Development (Unit I.1) Area = Potentially eligible area in 2008 - IACS Beneficiaries in FY 2008 – DG Agriculture and Rural Development (2008 CATS Report) Updated: 8.10.2010 These amounts correspond to the gross ceilings foreseen in Reg. 73/2009 with phasing-in completed for EU-12, including the transfers from the wine enveloppe and the silkworms, after modulation and transfers in accordance with Decision 379/2009. This graph shows the issue of different levels of direct payments between Member States. The bars in blue show the average level of payment per hectare in each Member State in 2016 if we keep the current situation or status quo (2016 is considered to take into account the full phasing in of the new member states). This is a calculation obtained by dividing the total amount of direct payments by the agricultural utilized area in each MS. It provide us with the average level of payment per hectare in each MS. The difference between the MS reflect the historical references for the direct payments, firstly introduced in the 1992 reform, to compensate price reductions, and calculated in function of past production levels of each MS. The black bars show the difference between the average direct payments in old MS (262 EUR/ha) and new MS (182 EUR/ha) The orange line shows the level in which the EU flat rate (calculated by dividing the total amount of direct payments in the EU by the total amount of agricultural utilised area) all the amount would be set up to (with 100% of current overall budget). The MS with high levels of aid would lose (left) and the MS with low levels would win (right). The bullets show an alternative calculation: average payments per beneficiary instead of hectare (it is not actually the hectares who get the money…). The case of Greece, that passes from the highest level of aid per hectare to one of the lowest per beneficiary, or Chec Republic in a opposite manner, shows how the payment level discussion can have different angles. One could as well see other alternative conclusions: the average payments divided by the level of the country GDP. Here New Member states, like Latvia would have a higher level of aid… Impacts of levelling direct payments: In short, the levelling of direct payments across the EU can lead to important budgetary redistribution between Member States and regions. The extreme would be to introduce a EU wide flat rate across the EU, leading to big losers and winners. This redistribution as important implications, beyond the budgetary ones: It would lead to a big impact in land values: in the MS loosing, land values would be depressed while in the winning MS they would be inflated (with negative effects, in particular, in “loosing” MS where the debt to equity ratio of farms are already high); There would big impact in farmer’s incomes. However, not necessarily in terms of distribution of support between farmers (as flat rate direct payments do not fundamentally affect the distribution of support between farms) because with a flat rate this is largely determined by the unequal distribution of land. Fonte: Comissão Europeia – DG Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural

3. Que instrumentos de política? Baseados numa estrutura de dois pilares Mais orientados aos objectivos Pagamentos directos Medidas de mercado Redistribuição Melhor orientação Reformulação: Pagamentos directos mais “verdes” Limitação dos pagamentos Apoio aos pequenos agricultores Areas com limitaçoes naturais especificas Orientação de mercado Racionalização e simplificação Melhor funcionamento da cadeia alimentar

Transmissão de preços lenta, limitada e assimétrica ao longo da cadeia alimentar CRISE DOS PREÇOS DOS PRODUTOS ALIMENTARES DIFERENCIAL DOS PRODUTORES DIFERENCIAL DOS RETALHISTAS ESTABILIZAÇÃO Preços dos alimentos no produtor Preços dos produtos agrícolas Preços dos alimentos no consumidor Inflação global (IHPC) Source: European Commission - DG Economic and Financial Affairs, based on Eurostat and DG Agriculture and Rural Development (Agriview) data Updated: April 2010 Fonte: Comissão Europeia (DG Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural), com base em dados do Eurostat

3. Que instrumentos de política? Baseados numa estrutura de dois pilares Mais orientados aos objectivos Pagamentos directos Medidas de mercado Desenvolvimento rural Redistribuição Melhor orientação Reformulação: Pagamentos directos mais “verdes” Limitação dos pagamentos Apoio aos pequenos agricultores Areas com limitaçoes naturais especificas Orientação de mercado Racionalização e simplificação Melhor funcionamento da cadeia alimentar Ambiente, alterações climáticas e inovação como temas principais Maior coerência com outras políticas da UE Maior eficácia dos mecanismos de execução Gestão de riscos Novos critérios de distribuição

Propostas Legislativas serão apresentadas no segundo semestre de 2011 3. Próximas etapas Debate interinstitucional sobre a comunicação Preparação da avaliação do impacto Análise aprofundada da Comissão de novo enquadramento da política, opções e aos seus impactos económicos, sociais e ambientais Consulta às organizações: terminada a 23 de Novembro Preparação de propostas legislativas Propostas Legislativas serão apresentadas no segundo semestre de 2011

Obrigado

Para mais informações A PAC após 2013 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/index_en.htm Comunicação sobre o futuro da PAC http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/communication/ index_en.htm Consulta pública http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/consultation/ index_en.htm