Cross compliance

1. Cross compliance Set up and organization of cross compliance in the Netherlands Drs. J.M. (Hans) Brand Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality 22 July 2008 t: +31 (070) 378 5536 j.m.brand@minlnv.nl

2. Introduction • Some facts and figures • Organisation and competent control authorities • Sampling selection • On-the-spot checks • Reduction system • Information to the farmers J.M. Brand

3. 1. Facts and figures J.M. Brand

4. Organisation chart Minister Ministry of Agriculture , Nature and Food Quality G . Verburg ( as at 01 - 01 - 2008 ) Executive Board Secretary - General 3 Directors - General Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Minister’s Office Personel and Audit Branch Food Quality and Nature Fisheries Legal Affairs Knowledge Organisation Animal Health Dep . of Department of Department of Department of Information , Department of Department of Department of Department of Financial and Trade and International Management , Communications Agriculture Rural Affairs Regional Affairs Facilities and Economic Aff . Industry Affairs Services Food & National Service Government General Consumer for the Plant Protection Service for Land Inspection ICT Services Product Safety Implementation Service and Water Service Authority of Regulations Management

5. Dutch agriculture (2006/2007) J.M. Brand

6. Production value (billion euro) J.M. Brand

7. Agricultural land use 2005 (x 1000 ha) J.M. Brand

8. J.M. Brand

9. CAP in the Netherlands • Historic model • Start decoupling in 2006 • except slaughter premiums (four years) and line seed • Free trade of payment entitlements • No special regional arrangements • No reductions by selling entitlements J.M. Brand

10. 2. Organisation and competent control authorities J.M. Brand

11. Current administrative organization • Political objective for the cross-compliance control system: simple, transparent, feasible and with reasonable costs • Control Authorities • Carrying out controls and reporting to PA • Paying Agency • Fixing and applying reductions to payments J.M. Brand

12. Control authorities • Controls are as much as possible delegated to the competent specialized control authorities • The cross-compliance control system is in association with (but not interfering) the existing regular control and enforcement practices • Adequate exchange of information between control authorities must be guaranteed J.M. Brand

13. Involved partners • Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality • Ministries of Environment, Home Affairs, Human Health and Welfare • 1 Paying Agency (+ 3 delegated bodies) • 1 Coordinating Control Authority • 6 Specialized control bodies • Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA) • Police • National Inspection Service on Animal Welfare (LID) J.M. Brand

15. Control competence (2008) Derived from their existing enforcement competence: J.M. Brand

16. Cooperation between control authorities • Coordinating Control Authority assists the other specialized control authorities (hybrid model): • Integrated risk analysis en selection (1%) • Coordination and planning of combined control visits • Registration control results in one central database: • Results from the 1% selection • Results from their regular enforcement (SMR’s and GEAC’s) • Reporting all validated control results to the PA J.M. Brand

17. Administrative costs • Number of controls in selection 2008: 750 • Dutch SMR’s and GAEC’s are all existing (at least) national legislation • Administrative burden for the farmer is limited • Administrative costs for national authorities still high • Control model based on cooperation • Long list of SMR’s and GAEC’s to be checked • Compulsory inefficient control procedures J.M. Brand

18. Farmers response • Farmers generally accept cross compliance in return for their uncoupled direct payments, but …. • cross compliance is experienced as a black box, • reductions as a double sanction, and the • burden of different controls as too high • (more cooperation needed between: • public control authorities and • public and private quality assurance schemes) J.M. Brand

19. 3. Sampling selection J.M. Brand

20. Obligations • Farmers should be selected for on-the-spot checks: • Art. 45(2): from the sample for eligibility controls based on art. 26 and 27, or • Art. 45(3): directly from the total population for farmers submitting aid applications. • Dutch choice: art. 45(3): • The risk analysis can be restricted to once a year • The selection can be made available early (jan/feb) • The on-spot-checks can start early spring (march) J.M. Brand

21. Sampling selection • Minimum control rate = 1% (according to art.44(1)) • But for safety reasons NL plans at least 1,05% • 80% selected by risk analysis • 20% selected at random • Sampling is done once a year by the EU-Desk of the AID and is send to all control authorities J.M. Brand

22. Target groups 1 • Since 2007 all farmers applying for aid (approx. 72.000) are divided into target groups • Advantages: • I&R is restricted to 50% of the on-the-spot checks • Every (small or new) SMR/GAEC is given adequate attention J.M. Brand

23. Target groups 2 (2007) J.M. Brand

24. Risk Factors 1 • Simple and transparent scores: • 0 not applicable • 1 risk does exist • 3 high risk of non-compliance • Few exceptions: • 100 direct selection • 0,1 for animal diseases (MFD, BSE, etc.) • -1 reduced risk • -15 excluded from selection J.M. Brand

25. Risk factors 2 • General risk factors (3 year period) • Farmers history of non-compliances: • from regular enforcement • from cross compliance • Farmers history of applied financial corrections • Specific risk factors • Legislation related: for every SMR or GAEC al least one risk factor (for RDP also two extra SMR’s) • Participation and assurance history in Quality Assurance Schemes J.M. Brand

26. Selection of farmers • For applicants all the available and evaluated data will be analysed and total risk calculated • For each target group applicants are ranked by highest total risk score • Example 30% arable farmers •  180 farmers with highest total score are selected • And 20% farmers with intensive husbandry •  120 farmers selected; • ….. etc. J.M. Brand

27. 4. On-the-spot checks J.M. Brand

28. Operational planning • 3 shifts per calendar year • Shift has execution period of 120 days • Taking into account for example: • Cultivation season • Breeding season • Period when animals stay inside • Application period (fertiliser, pesticides, etc.) • Coordinated by the central control unit (EU-desk) J.M. Brand

29. Preparation by the inspector • Study the file made by the CCA • Make arrangements with other control partners (combined control visits) • Gather further information • Locations of the farm • Data from automated systems (f.e. I&R) • Historic records (control history) • Use the cross compliance checklist • Be accurate and make notes (transparency) • Administrate correctly afterwards in the central control database of the AID J.M. Brand

30. J.M. Brand

31. Other tasks of the EU-Desk • Preparing • manuals and instructions for inspectors • cross compliance checklist • formats for reporting by other control authorities • Training and education of inspectors • Internal audit • Annual accounting to the Ministry J.M. Brand

32. 5. Reduction system J.M. Brand

33. Elaboration of SMR’s and GAEC’s • As much as possible on the level of individual article(s) in national legislation (or EU legislation if national requirements are more stringent) • If requirements from different EU Reg. or Dir. are essentially the same: only one requirement • As much as possible coherent with current regular enforcement practices of relevant legislation J.M. Brand

34. Evaluation framework for non-compliances (point system) • Unique framework: • Every requirement is beforehand coded individually and objectively on the criteria severity, extent, permanence • Advantages • Simple & transparent for farmers, control authorities, paying agency and European Commission • Equal treatment of farmers in equal situations of determined non-compliances: inspector only registers agreed/not agreed • As much as possible computerized processing and reduction of individual cases for evaluation • Reduction of the administrative burden and reducing costs for national authorities J.M. Brand

35. Framework for standard evaluation Based on expert judgement by each relevant control authority • Severity • Extent • Permanence J.M. Brand

36. Framework initial reduction Rule: score 1  1%; score 2, 3 and 4  3%; score 5  5% J.M. Brand

37. Calculation per area of cross compliance – an example J.M. Brand

38. All areas of cross compliance J.M. Brand

39. Summary • The point system is simple, transparent, feasible and can be carried out with reasonable costs • Takes account of the evaluation criteria (art.41) • A first element of proportionality of the sanction is included (requirements compared with each other) J.M. Brand

40. Second element of proportionality • But a second element of proportionality is still required (art.48 of Reg. 796/2004: the control report) • A evaluation part is taken up in the control report for the criterion ‘severity’ • depending on the degree of the non-compliance • in connection with national enforcement practices • Example: • Mitigating: 2 animals are missing one ear tag , or • Aggravating: 50% of the on farm live stock is missing an ear tag J.M. Brand

41. Integration in the calculation system J.M. Brand

42. Possibilities for tolerance In connection with treatment by national law • Defining tolerance limits for each requirement/standard (tolerance will not be recorded as non-compliance) • Example 1: up to 5 bovine animals missing one ear tag or max. 10% of total live stock. • Example 2: zero tolerance for applying animal manure on frozen land. • Issuing warning letter (non-compliancedetermined, but remains without consequence after proven appropriate action by the farmer) • example 1: presence of not permitted plant protection products. If the farmer can show written prove of proper disposal afterwards, this will have no consequence. • example 2: the crop free zone along the water course is 125 cm, but must be 150 cm. A return visit is necessary to evaluate if the farmer has taken appropriate action. J.M. Brand

43. Repetition • the non-compliance with the same requirement, standard or obligation determined more than once within a consecutive period of three years (art.41) • Implementation in the Netherlands: • 3 x 365/366 days, starting date last control visit • Taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances • Farmer is informed about prior non-compliance • Farmer has been given time for remedial action J.M. Brand

44. Intent 1 • Intent is already part of the legal description of the requirement or standard • example: “a ban to disturb nesting meadow birds intentionally” • After reaching the reduction of 15% (cf. art. 66.4) in case of repeated non-compliance of individual requirements or standards J.M. Brand

45. Intent 2 • Circumstances on farm determined and evaluated by the inspector • condition: the inspector must clearly and evidently demonstrate intent in his report • Objective criteria to be used by the inspector: • The requirement is easy to comply with; • The requirement already exists long time; • The non-compliance assumes a deliberate and intentional action or negligence; • The farmer is informed about prior non-compliances; • The non-compliance is extreme in severity. J.M. Brand

46. Extreme non-compliance • Extreme situation always implies intentional actions • If circumstances on farm are evaluated by the inspector as extreme, he must clearly demonstrate and evidently describe the extremity of the situation • All control reports indicated by the inspector as • extreme • repetition of intentional non-compliance are individually evaluated and decided on J.M. Brand

47. 6. Information to the farmers J.M. Brand

48. From the start in 2005 • CAP Newsletter • Including extensive overviews and explanations of the specific requirements; • 8 newsletters, 90.000 farmers, 1.000 farm advisors • CAP Information sessions • 43 sessions in all regions, 11.000 farmers J.M. Brand

49. During later years • Brochures: • cross compliance reductions • ‘Cross compliance and your farm’ (dec.2006) • Sent to all applying farmers and since then to every applying for the first time • Press releases, newsletters • Internet application (farm advisors and farmers) • Call Center J.M. Brand

50. Farm Advisory Service • Long Dutch history of transfer of agricultural research to and uptake by farmers • Specialized education system • Specialized agricultural research system • Specialized agricultural extension service but: • Since beginning ’90 the extension service is completely privatised • Farmers now have to pay for it J.M. Brand