Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)626 - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) - EU monitor

EU monitor
Monday, January 18, 2021

Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)626 - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.


The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 (the MFF proposal) i sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2014-2020, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy.

The current reform proposals are based on the Communication on the CAP towards 2020 i that outlined broad policy options in order to respond to the future challenges for agriculture and rural areas and to meet the objectives set for the CAP, namely 1) viable food production; 2) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action; and 3) balanced territorial development. The reform orientations in the Communication have since been broadly supported both in the inter-institutional debate i and in the stakeholder consultation that took place in the framework of the impact assessment.

A common theme that has emerged throughout this process is the need to promote resource efficiency with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural areas in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, keeping the structure of the CAP around two pillars that use complementary instruments in pursuit of the same objectives. Pillar I covers direct payments and market measures providing a basic annual income support to EU farmers and support in case of specific market disturbances, while Pillar II covers rural development where Member States draw up and co-finance multiannual programmes under a common framework.[4]

Through successive reforms the CAP has increased market orientation for agriculture while providing income support to producers, improved the integration of environmental requirements and reinforced support for rural development as an integrated policy for the development of rural areas across the EU. However, the same reform process has raised demands for a better distribution of support among and within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures aiming at addressing environmental challenges and better addressing increased market volatility.

In the past, reforms mainly responded to endogenous challenges, from huge surpluses to food safety crises; they have served the EU well both on the domestic and the international front. However, most of today's challenges are driven by factors that are external to agriculture and would thus require a broader policy response.

The pressure on agricultural income is expected to continue as farmers are facing more risks, a slowdown in productivity and a margin squeeze due to rising input prices; there is therefore a need to maintain income support and to reinforce instruments to better manage risks and respond to crisis situations. A strong agriculture is vital for the EU food industry and global food security.

At the same time, agriculture and rural areas are being called upon to step up their efforts to meet the ambitious climate and energy targets and biodiversity strategy that are part of the Europe 2020 agenda. Farmers, who are together with foresters the main land managers, will need to be supported in adopting and maintaining farming systems and practices that are particularly favourable to environmental and climate objectives because market prices do not reflect the provision of such public goods. It will also be essential to best harness the diverse potential of rural areas and thus contribute to inclusive growth and cohesion.

The future CAP will not, therefore, be a policy that caters only for a small, albeit essential, part of the EU economy, but also a policy of strategic importance for food security, the environment and territorial balance. Therein lies the EU added value of a truly common policy that makes the most efficient use of limited budgetary resources in maintaining a sustainable agriculture throughout the EU, addressing important cross-border issues such as climate change and reinforcing solidarity among Member States, while also allowing flexibility in implementation to cater for local needs.

The framework set out in the MFF proposal foresees that the CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure with the budget for each pillar maintained in nominal terms at its 2013 level and with a clear focus on delivering results on the key EU priorities. Direct payments should promote sustainable production by assigning 30 % of their budgetary envelope to mandatory measures that are beneficial to climate and the environment. Payment levels should progressively converge and payments to large beneficiaries be subject to progressive capping. Rural development should be included in a Common Strategic Framework with other EU shared management funds with a reinforced outcome-orientated approach and subject to clearer, improved ex-ante conditionalities. Finally, on market measures the financing of the CAP should be reinforced with two instruments outside the MFF: 1) an emergency reserve to react to crisis situations; and 2) the extension of the scope of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund.


On this basis, the main elements of the legislative framework for the CAP during the period 2014-2020 are set out in the following regulations:

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy ('the direct payments regulation');

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) ('the Single CMO regulation');

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ('the rural development regulation');

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy ('the horizontal regulation');

– Proposal for a Council regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013;

– Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers.

The rural development regulation builds on the proposal presented by the Commission on 6 October 2011 that sets out common rules for all funds operating under a Common Strategic Framework i. A regulation will follow on the scheme for most deprived persons, for which funding is now placed under a different heading of the MFF.

In addition, new rules on the publication of information on beneficiaries taking account of the objections expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union are also under preparation with a view to finding the most appropriate way to reconcile beneficiaries' right to protection of personal data with the principle of transparency.



On the basis of the evaluation of the current policy framework and an analysis of future challenges and needs, the impact assessment assesses and compares the impact of three alternative scenarios. This is the result of a long process started in April 2010 and steered by an inter-service group that brought together extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis, including setting a baseline in the form of medium-term projections for agricultural markets and income up to 2020 and modelling the impact of the different policy scenarios on the economics of the sector.

The three scenarios elaborated in the impact assessment are: 1) an adjustment scenario that continues with the current policy framework while addressing its most important shortcomings, such as the distribution of direct payments; 2) an integration scenario that entails major policy changes in the form of enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments and reinforced strategic targeting for rural development policy in better coordination with other EU policies, as well as extending the legal base for a broader scope of producer cooperation; and 3) a refocus scenario that reorients the policy exclusively towards the environment with a progressive phasing out of direct payments, assuming that productive capacity can be maintained without support and that the socio-economic needs of rural areas can be served by other policies.

Against the background of the economic crisis and the pressure on public finances, to which the EU has responded with the Europe 2020 strategy and the MFF proposal, all three scenarios attach different weight to each of the three policy objectives of the future CAP which aims at a more competitive and sustainable agriculture in vibrant rural areas. With a view to a better alignment with the Europe 2020 strategy, notably in terms of resource efficiency, it will be increasingly essential to improve agricultural productivity through research, knowledge transfer and promoting cooperation and innovation (including through the European Innovation Partnership on agricultural productivity and sustainability). Whereas EU agricultural policy does not any more operate within a trade distorting policy environment, additional pressure on the sector is expected from further liberalization, notably in the framework of the DDA or the FTA with Mercosur.

The three policy scenarios were drawn up taking into account the preferences expressed in the consultation which was conducted in the context of the impact assessment. Interested parties were invited to submit contributions between 23.11.2010 and 25.1.2011 and an advisory committee was organised on 12.1.2011.The main points are summarized below:[6]

– There is broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for a strong CAP based on a two-pillar-structure in order to address the challenges of food security, sustainable management of natural resources and territorial development.

– Most respondents find that the CAP should play a role in stabilizing markets and prices.

– Stakeholders have diverse opinions concerning the targeting of support (especially redistribution of direct aid and capping payments).

– There is agreement that both pillars can play an important role in stepping up climate action and increasing environmental performance for the benefit of EU society. Whereas many farmers believe that this already takes place today, the wider public argues that Pillar I payments can be more efficiently used.

– The respondents want all parts of the EU, including less favoured areas, to be part of future growth and development.

– The integration of the CAP with other policies, such as environmental, health, trade, development, was emphasised by many respondents.

– Innovation, development of competitive businesses and provision of public goods to EU citizens are seen as ways to align the CAP with the Europe 2020 strategy.


The impact assessment thus compared the three alternative policy scenarios:

The refocus scenario would accelerate structural adjustment in the agricultural sector, shifting production to the most cost efficient areas and profitable sectors. While significantly increasing funding for the environment, it would also expose the sector to greater risks due to limited scope for market intervention. Furthermore, it would come at a significant social and environmental cost as the less competitive areas would face a considerable income loss and environmental degradation, since the policy would lose the leverage of direct payments coupled with the cross compliance requirements.

At the other end of the spectrum, the adjustment scenario would best allow for policy continuity with limited but tangible improvements both in agricultural competitiveness and environmental performance. There are however serious doubts as to whether this scenario could adequately address the important climate and environmental challenges of the future, which also underpin the long-term sustainability of agriculture.

The integration scenario breaks new ground with enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments. The analysis shows that greening is possible at a reasonable cost to farmers although some administrative burden cannot be avoided. Similarly, a new impetus in rural development is possible provided that the new possibilities are efficiently used by Member States and regions and that the common strategic framework with the other EU funds does not remove synergies with Pillar I or weaken rural development's distinctive strengths. If the right balance is struck, this scenario would best address the long term sustainability of agriculture and rural areas.

On this basis the impact assessment concludes that the integration scenario is the most balanced in progressively aligning the CAP with the EU's strategic objectives and this balance is also found in the implementation of the different elements in the legislative proposals. It will also be essential to develop an evaluation framework to measure the performance of the CAP with a common set of indicators linked to policy objectives.

Simplification has been an important consideration throughout the process and should be enhanced in a variety of ways, for instance in the streamlining of cross compliance and market instruments, or the design of the small farmers scheme. In addition, the greening of direct payments should be designed in such a way as to minimize administrative burden including the costs of controls.



It is proposed to maintain the current structure of the CAP in two pillars with annual mandatory measures of general application in Pillar I complemented by voluntary measures better tailored to national and regional specificities under a multi-annual programming approach in Pillar II. However, the new design of direct payments seeks to better exploit synergies with Pillar II, which is in turn placed under a Common Strategic Framework to better coordinate with other EU shared management funds.

On this basis, the current structure of four basic legal instruments is also maintained, albeit with the scope of the financing regulation enlarged to bring together common provisions into what is now called the horizontal regulation.

The proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The CAP is a truly common policy: it is an area of shared competence between the EU and the Member States that is being handled at EU level with a view to maintaining a sustainable and diverse agriculture throughout the EU, addressing important cross-border issues such as climate change and reinforcing solidarity among Member States. In the light of the importance of future challenges for food security, the environment and territorial balance, the CAP remains a policy of strategic importance to ensure the most effective response to the policy challenges and the most efficient use of budgetary resources. In addition, it is proposed to maintain the current structure of instruments in two pillars where Member States have more leeway to tailor solutions to their local specificities and also co-finance Pillar II. The new European Innovation Partnership and risk management toolkit are also placed within Pillar II. At the same time the policy will be better aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy (including a common framework with other EU funds) and a number of improvements and simplification elements introduced. Finally, the analysis carried out in the framework of the impact assessment clearly shows the cost of no action in terms of negative economic, environmental and social consequences.

The Single CMO regulation lays down rules for the common organisation of agricultural markets, with the aid scheme for the most deprived to be placed under a separate instrument.

The 2008-2009 dairy crisis showed the need to maintain an effective safety net mechanism as well as to streamline available tools. The discussions in the High Level Expert Group on Milk that followed also pointed to the need to improve the functioning of the food chain. The regulation thus aims to streamline, expand and simplify provisions on the basis of experience to date with public intervention, private storage, exceptional/emergency measures and aid to specific sectors as well as to facilitate cooperation through producer and interbranch organisations.

Certain sectoral aids are removed (e.g. skimmed milk, hops and silkworms). The milk quota system and the wine planting ban are set to expire under existing legislation which is thus left unchanged in this respect. Sugar quotas are set to expire by 30 September 2015. A single animal disease / loss of consumer confidence provision and a general market disturbance clause are provided with the latter expanded to cover all sectors in the current Single CMO.

The product coverage for recognition of producer organisations and their associations as well as interbranch organisations by Member States is expanded to all sectors in the current Single CMO. Support for the setting up of producer groups in the fruit and vegetable sector is moved to rural development.

The regulation reflects the proposal already made for the milk sector that set out basic conditions if Member States make written contracts compulsory with a view to strengthening the bargaining power of milk producers in the food chain. It also reflects the proposal already made on marketing standards in the context of the quality package.

From a simplification perspective, doing away with certain sectoral aids, the decoupling of the aid scheme in the silk worm sector, ending the sugar quota system and removing the requirements for registration of supply contracts and for attestation of equivalence in the hops sector will positively impact the burden on Member States and red tape for operators. It will no longer be necessary to maintain a capacity to implement the sectoral aid schemes and to allocate resources to control them.



The MFF proposal provides that a significant part of the EU budget should continue to be dedicated to agriculture, which is a common policy of strategic importance. Thus, in current prices, it is proposed that the CAP should focus on its core activities with EUR 317.2 billion allocated to Pillar I and EUR 101.2 billion to Pillar II over the 2014-2020 period.

The Pillar I and Pillar II funding is complemented by additional funding of EUR 17.1 billion consisting of EUR 5.1 billion for research and innovation, EUR 2.5 billion for food safety and EUR 2.8 billion for food support for the most deprived persons in other headings of the MFF, as well as of EUR 3.9 billion in a new reserve for crises in the agricultural sector and up to EUR 2.8 billion in the European Globalization Adjustment Fund outside the MFF, thus bringing the total budget to EUR 435.6 billion over the 2014-2020 period.

As regards distribution of support among Member States, it is proposed that all Member States with direct payments below 90% of the EU average will see one third of this gap closed. The national ceilings in the direct payments regulation are calculated on this basis.

The distribution of rural development support is based on objective criteria linked to the policy objectives taking into account the current distribution. As is the case today, less developed regions should continue to benefit from higher co-financing rates, which will also apply to certain measures such as knowledge transfer, producer groups, cooperation and Leader.

Some flexibility for transfers between pillars is introduced (up to 5% of direct payments): from Pillar I to Pillar II to allow Member States to reinforce their rural development policy, and from Pillar II to Pillar I for those Member States where the level of direct payments remains below 90% of the EU average.

Details on the financial impact of the CAP reform proposals are set out in the financial statement accompanying the proposals.