Descărcați

ess to basic health services and education; 3) High speed internet access coverage; 4) Expansion of water and sewage systems; 5) Investments for the ecological reconstruction of habitats. 2.3 Interventions and Baseline 2.3.1 Conditionality GAEC 1 130. Romania is invited to further explain the implementation of GAEC 1, in particular as regard to the on-farm obligation and the steps that will be taken to ensure the maintenance of the permanent grassland ratio. GAEC 2 131. The Commission welcomes the application of this GAEC as from 2023. Romania is requested to explain the requirements for farmers, which will result from the elements/procedures and legislation mentioned under point a), b) and c). The Commission appreciates that drainage is prohibited, but would also expect to see limitation for tillage management, e.g. a ban on ploughing. Romania is requested to confirm that there is a ban on the conversion of wetland and peatland. 132. Romania is requested to explain the definition of peatland/wetland areas, and in particular to clarify whether the designation will depend on farmers’ declaration or whether it is based on an ex-ante designation. Romania is also requested to clarify the reference to “protected natural areas” as part of the designation of the areas relevant for GAEC 2. All wetland and peatland must be covered. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/2289, Romania is also requested to indicate the main types of agricultural areas present in the designated peatland or wetland area. 22 GAEC 4 133. It is not fully clear from the description of this GAEC that the use of both fertilizers and plant protection products is prohibited. Romania is requested to clarify this. GAEC 5 134. The definition of the areas of risk of erosion appears too limited, as it is based on a 12% slope-criterion. Romania is encouraged to consider whether there is a risk of erosion on areas other than those with a slope above 12%, and to align the definition accordingly or to apply this GAEC to those other areas as well; this is also required with a view to reflect the SWOT for SO 5, and to ensure a good contribution to the needs related to erosion, e.g. as set out in need 19. With regard to the suggested requirements, the Commission considers that, in view of meeting the objective of this GAEC, Romania should be more specific and restrictive with regard to the tillage management criteria to respect. GAEC 6 135. GAEC 6 concerns areas where bare soils occur (permanent crops and arable land excluding temporary pastures). In principle, all arable land needs to be covered. Romania is therefore requested to cover permanent crops as well as all arable land, and not only 20% of a given farm, with GAEC 6. 136. Romania is requested to specify the period in which the requirements apply. In the case of fallow land, additional requirement should be set to ensure appropriate soil cover. Romania is also requested to specify the sensitive period concerned. GAEC 7 137. Romania is requested to provide further details on the requirements to respect the rotation practices as well as to include the definition of crop and secondary crop. 138. As regards secondary crops, Romania should note that these must be cultivated in the time between the cultivation of two main types of crops and they should cover the full period between the cultivation of those main crops resulting in a “significant break” between these. 139. With regard to the application of the exemption for holdings of less than 10 hectares of arable land, Romania is requested to consider the observation made to the eco-scheme PD-05. GAEC 8 140. In the context of the standard for a minimum share of arable land devoted to non- productive features, the Commission recalls that areas with short rotation coppice, afforested areas and areas with miscanthus do not qualify as non-productive, and should be removed from the list of features. For the sake of clarity, Romania is invited to tick the specific box in SFC for ditches rather than listing it in the box for “others”. 141. The proposed list of landscape features is rather narrow and does not include for instance cairns, ditches, small ponds, small wetlands and stonewalls. These are important features for species conservation and Romania is invited to reconsider 23  the proposed list. The same applies to the proposed list of landscape features for retention that is limited to only terraces, hedges and group/rows of trees. 142. Romania is requested to provide an explanation of the choice of option for the minimum share of arable land devoted to non-productive features. 143. Romania is requested to clarify and ensure that the option 2, linking this GAEC to an eco-scheme, is compliant with the requirements in Annex III to the SPR. 144. Romania is asked to consider extending the date of the specific period when pruning and cutting trees is not allowed depending of the length of the breeding season. A period ending on 31 August would ensure a better contribution to the objective of this GAEC. GAEC 9 145. An indication of the criteria used to designate “environmentally sensitive permanent grassland” is requested. Considering the importance of this GAEC to protect pastures of high natural value, Romania is invited to consider a wide definition of these areas taking into account the current grassland status. 2.3.2 For direct income support 2.3.2.1 Basic Income Support for Sustainability (BISS) (Articles 21-28 of the SPR, section 5 of the Plan) 146. In the description of the intervention (and also all through other descriptive sections), BISS is called/referred to as an eco-scheme. In order to avoid confusion, Romania is invited to delete this reference. 147. The unit amount for BISS cannot be justified as being the result from the division of the BISS envelope by the number of estimated eligible hectares. The planned unit amount should primarily be justified on the basis of the analysis of the income needs. Taking into account the number of estimated eligible hectares, the indicative financial allocation for BISS is the result of this exercise, not the starting point. 148. Romania defines two unit amounts and therefore de facto uses the differentiation by groups of territories provided for under Article 22(2) of the SPR. It should be recalled that the ‘group of territories’ should be defined based on agronomic or socio-economic criteria and the difference in income support has to be justified in relation with different income needs. In addition, where the agronomic or socio- economic criteria refer to parameters linked to production such as ‘animal load or not’, these criteria should be based to a past reference period. If not, the differentiation creates a production incentive as a result of which the intervention is no longer green box compliant. Romania should therefore revise the definition of its groups of territories. 149. When revising the proposed Plan, it must also be ensured that eligibility conditions mentioned are in line with the definitions laid down in Article 3 of the SPR or included in the Plan and do not repeat them. 150. Romania is requested to reconsider the variation of the unit amount provided for BISS. The variation percentages are considered to be very high and are not 24  adequately justified. The justification of the unit amount on the one hand, and of minimum and maximum unit amounts on the other hand should be linked. These justifications should primarily be based on data related to the needs, which the relevant interventions are meant to address. Elements of uncertainty leading to a risk of unspent funds can be added to justify the variation. However, these elements must also be explained and where possible based on data, e.g. related to past experience related to under-execution. 2.3.2.2 CRISS (Article 29 of the SPR, section 5 of the Plan) 151. Please reconsider the variation of the unit amount provided for CRISS. The variation percentage is considered to be very high and is not adequately justified. The preceding observations on the justification of the unit amounts related to BISS are also applicable to CRISS. 152. The paragraph on artificial splitting (fragmentation) needs to be clearer. 2.3.2.3 Complementary Income Support for young farmers (CIS-YF) (Article 30 of the SPR, section 5 of the Plan) 153. Romania is requested to: 1) Link the intervention to SO7, including to indicate the relevant need, as well as to R.36 and R.37; 2) Adjust the requirement of “being newly setup” to show the connection to the initial start of the agricultural activity; 3) Explain and justify the hectare threshold, the planned unit amount and its variations in view of their contribution to attract and sustain young farmers. 2.3.2.4 Eco-schemes (Article 31 of the SPR, section 5 of the Plan) Comments for all eco-schemes 154. All eco-schemes have to provide a contribution to result indicators R.4 (income support), R.6 (redistribution to smaller farms) and R.7 (enhancing support for farms in areas with specific needs). These indicators do not reflect the environmental contribution of eco-schemes, but they do provide information on key objectives for direct payments. 155. Romania should clarify how the proposed practices address the needs identified, and ensure coherence between the substance of the intervention action areas and SOs. 156. In order to comply with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex II to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture classification and their respective requirements, the eco-schemes only applicable to arable land cannot be implemented as an additional payment to BISS under Article 31(7)(a) of the SPR, but should make use of the method under Article 31(7)(b) of the SPR. In this context, Romania should consider whether more than one unit amount should be set. 157. Romania should explain the methodology used to compute the support rates when applying Article 31(7)(b) of the SPR. In addition, Romania should ensure that this methodology is certified by a specialised body. The certified method should be provided in an annex to the Plan and it should be indicated whether full or partial compensation is granted (point 5(e)(iv) of the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/2289). Romania is also reminded that when applying the method under 25  Article 31(7)(b) of the SPR, the setting of maximum and minimum unit amount is limited by paragraph 12 of Annex II to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and in particular, overcompensation shall be avoided. For the method under Article 31(7)(a) of the SPR, an explanation of the planned unit amount is required. 158. For PD-7 and PD-8, the SMR 9 is missing from the description. The SWOT does not mention any issue with the welfare of milking cows and calves. It is not clear how farmers should fulfil commitments. In addition, there are many other types of meaningful welfare commitments which are not addressed, such as increased space, bedding materials. In contrast, some commitments appear to add little to the welfare of animals (for example the increased daily inspection). PD-04: Environmentally beneficial practices applicable on arable land 159. Romania is invited to describe the exact commitments for this eco-scheme in the dedicated section in SFC (currently missing). This should include a clarification of the design of the intervention between the proposed general conditions and specific conditions, including a clarification of how many specific conditions farmers have to respect/subscribe to depending on the general condition. This should also be considered in the light of observation [159] concerning the application of Article 31(7)(b) of the SPR. 160. Concerning the general condition to have non-productive areas beyond a certain percentage (4%), Romania should specify the minimum percentage of arable land to be non-productive. This is also important if this is the eco-scheme, which is linked to the option 2 for implementation of GAEC 8 as referred to in Annex III to the SPR (at this stage it is not clear how this eco-scheme ensures that farmers can commit to have at least 7% of arable land devoted to non-productive features). 161. In the case of farmers with more than 75% of arable land covered with grass or herbaceous forage, a minimum percentage of non-productive elements of 1% is not deemed to provide sufficient environmental benefits to justify an eco-scheme payment. Romania is invited to reconsider this in relation to the clarification of the minimum combination of different practices for farmers under this eco-scheme. 162. Concerning the practice related to crop diversification, the Commission also invites Romania to reconsider the exemption for farmers with more than 75% of arable land with grass, herbaceous forage, and leguminous plants, together with the total combination of practices, which the farmers must subscribe to. The cultivation of more than 75% of arable land with grass/herbaceous/leguminous plants or covered with crops under water is not in itself an agricultural practice, which can justify a payment under an eco-scheme. In relation to this practice, Romania is also requested to explain and justify the exemption for organic farming, to explain the articulation with the support for organic farming under rural development and to ensure that no double funding is granted. 163. In addition, the conditions proposed as regards crop diversification are similar to the current greening practices. The value added of such requirement compared to GAEC 7 is questionable and Romania is invited to reconsider the requirements. 164. The commitments consider winter and spring varieties of the same crop counting as two different crops. This is not justified from an agronomic point of view and with a view to the objective of the practice. Romania is requested to modify this. 26 165. The practice related to minimum tillage should be reviewed in light of GAEC 6. In addition, there is a condition of no/min tillage on at least 50% of the area. The value added as compared to GAEC 5 needs to be clarified. In addition, the Plan states that if the 50% area requirement is not complied with and it is lower, the payment would be for the lower surface. Due to this latter statement, the condition of having at least 50% area under low/min tillage becomes superfluous. 166. Further clarification is needed in relation to the practice for precision fertilization, in particular with regard to how it is ensured that this will reduce the surplus of nutrients. Further, the practice of soil liming does not in itself justify support under an eco-scheme. 167. The condition on the rational use of nutrients is not clear and it is not quantified. 168. Romania is also invited to explain the mandatory national standards relevant for this scheme. Romania should clearly explain how the commitments of this eco- scheme are going beyond the baseline. In this context, Romania is requested to take the observations in the section on conditionality of this letter, in particular to GAEC 5 and 6, into account. 169. Romania is invited to explain why, by setting the minimum area to enter into the scheme at five ha, the eco-scheme effectively excludes small farmers from support. Taking into account that the scheme PD-05 is applicable on farms of maximum 10 ha, Romania is invited to ensure that there are no overlaps for farmers in the implementation of both eco-schemes (for areas between 5-10 ha). 170. The Commission understands that Romania suggests the payment to be made in respect of all arable land regardless of whether the hectares are under commitments or lying fallow. This approach does not appear to comply with Article 31(7) of the SPR, which provides that the payment shall be made for all eligible hectares covered by the commitment, unless leaving land lying fallow is (beyond the baseline) considered a commitment. 171. Romania is invited to link this intervention to result indicator R.34 as regards to areas under non-productive features. R.14 could also be added. PD-05: Practicing environmentally friendly agriculture in small farms (traditional households) 172. The Commission takes the view that this eco-scheme does not produce sufficient environmental or climate benefits. The practices included in an eco-scheme must go beyond the baseline and be designed to meet the objectives set out in Article 6(1), point (d), (e) and (f) as well as, as regards animal welfare and anti-microbial resistance, point (i) of the SPR. While protein crops can bring relevant benefits, the requirement to grow protein crops is not a practice, which in itself can justify an eco-scheme. It is not clear how the minimum LU density set in relation to “arable land” and not to the entire holding provides environmental benefits, also in the absence of a maximum LU density. 173. The pra