Farms that were labor intensive, thus providing jobs in the local community, could have up to €8,000 exempted from dynamic modulation, at the member state’s discretion. Though this program seemed to be cutting overall levels of spending, the money garnished from farmer income payments was not leaving the CAP but rather being redirected into other CAP programs. Member states would keep a portion of the money for rural development and environmental programs, while the rest would be re-distributed among member states “on the basis of agricultural area, agricultural employment, and prosperity criteria to target specific rural needs” . Through this system of redistribution, and by garnishing the payments of the farmers who earned the most, dynamic modulation would contribute to achieving the twin goals of reducing the disparity in payments between large and smaller farmers and improving the distribution across member states. Dynamic modulation is an example of using the welfare state tactic of turning vice into virtue in the context of agricultural policy reform. Specifically, the dynamic modulation reform revised an existing program , reorienting this CAP program to operate more equitability. As with vice into virtue in the world of the social welfare state, an existing program that was operating inefficiently and inequitably was corrected through reform, rather than eliminating the policy entirely and attempting to replace it. Payments for all farmers above a certain threshold would be reduced, and collected funds would be redeployed to other areas of need. This objective of reducing the disparity in payment levels within and across countries was taken increasingly seriously,hydroponic vertical garden as inequality in the operation of CAP support payments was beginning to garner attention beyond EU technocrats.

The Commission noted that dynamic modulation would “allow some redistribution from intensive cereal and livestock producing countries to poorer and more extensive/mountainous countries, bringing positive environmental and cohesion effects” . The redirection of funds from income payments to rural development programs was also atangible way for EU officials to signal a stronger commitment to the CAP’s social and environmental objectives. These social and environmental objectives had been identified by the public via Eurobarometer surveys as both the most important objectives of the CAP and areas where the CAP was failing to meet existing expectations. Also included in the dynamic modulation package was a proposal to cap the amount of direct aid any individual farmer could receive at €300,000 a year. This proposal was motivated by the desire to prevent large farms from receiving what many considered to be exorbitant sums of money. Specifically, it would address public concerns over the inequality in the operation of CAP payments. The payment cap was also intended to help correct the problem of an inequitable distribution of support within and across countries. This limit would reduce the overall gap between the largest and smallest recipients. In addition, it would begin to correct for payment imbalances among member states, as most of the farmers who would be subjected to the income cap were concentrated in a few member states. The inclusion of a cap on income payments is another example of CAP reformers employing the vice into virtue technique, which has been similarly used by welfare state reformers to correct welfare programs that are operating inefficiently or producing unequal outcomes. The third and final reform was mandatory cross compliance. In Agenda 2000, cross compliance was adopted only in voluntary form. In the MTR, Fischler sought to make this program compulsory. Under cross-compliance, direct payments could be made conditional on achieving certain environmental goals. The income payment could, for example, be reduced if a farmer failed to comply with a given environmental rule. Farmers who met the standards would receive the full amount of direct payments for which they were eligible, but would not receive a bonus for full compliance.

Farmers who received direct payments would be required to maintain all of their land in good agricultural and environmental condition; if not, payment reductions were to be applied as a sanction . The inclusion of cross-compliance in Agenda 2000 positioned Fischler to make further reforms in the MTR, because he had already softened the ground in the previous agreement. As Fischler noted, “all the components of cross compliance [in the MTR proposal] were things that were already in place since Agenda 2000, but the member states had been responsible for implementing them. However, most members didn’t do it, or did a lousy job of implementing them” . Leading Commission officials argued that the member states had already approved and accepted the concept of cross compliance, so there was no reason that it should be rejected during the MTR. In reality, the vast majority of member states had chosen not to implement any of the standards or rules because cross compliance was an optional program. Still, Fischler was able to put them on the defensive for “failing” to implement Agenda 2000. As Fischler explained, “farmer ministers were put in a hard spot because now they had to account for failure to implement all of these measures in the past. They couldn’t oppose the concept of cross-compliance because they had already agreed to it, so they made the usual complaint that it would hurt farmers, but that’s always their line” . Fischler saw cross compliance as a legitimacy-boosting technique because it tied eligibility for support to compliance with environmental conditions and standards . Cross-compliance would help address public criticism of the CAP by strengthening the greening component and further developing the image of the farmer as a provider of not just food, but broader public goods and services. Mandatory cross-compliance could also attenuate the image of the farmer as a polluter.Fischler’s proposal for the MTR was sent to the College of Commissioners for formal discussion, revision, and approval.

The proposal was well received by the Commission overall. Fischler was respected within the Commission as an agricultural expert and a reformer . The way for his proposal was further smoothed, thanks to an October 2002 agreement engineered by Chirac and Schröder at the Brussels European Council meeting, which guaranteed that the agricultural budget for direct-market supports would not be cut before 2013, when a new budget would be drafted . Even though Commission President Romano Prodi had previously expressed a desire to cut the CAP by up to 30%, the ChiracSchröder deal prevented him from doing so, despite the fact that he was supported by other Commissioners who hoped to use these CAP cuts to direct more support into their own portfolios. The deal to not cut the CAP budget was extracted by France in exchange for supporting enlargement, and allowed the budget to increase by 1% each year until 2013 . This agreement was a major victory for France and the CAP, as the EU’s multi-annual financial framework at the time called for an automatic annual cut in the CAP budget . The proposal designed by Fischler and his team was also well received by the Commission because it addressed several of the main issues that provided the impetus for reform: food safety and quality, environmental impact, imbalances in the distribution of CAP support, and the CAP’s impeding of trade negotiations. Food safety and quality issues were addressed by cross compliance. Decoupling of payments and cross compliance handled the issue of environmental impact, while dynamic modulation confronted the problem of inequities in CAP support distribution. Finally, decoupling brought the CAP support payments into the WTO green box,vertical vegetable tower and thus into compliance with existing WTO rules on agricultural subsidies. The core components of the proposed CAP reform were also structured so that they would directly address the challenge posed by enlargement. Doing away with payments tied to production and instead basing income support on historical yields tied to holding size would save the CAP money in both the short and long term. Farms in the East were, on balance, much smaller and less productive than those in the West. As a result, their calculated income support payment would be comparatively low. In addition, there was no risk that, as these farmers gained access to improved resources and technology enabling them to improve their output, the CAP would have to fund larger payments. Instead, income payments would be tied to a low historic yield. Cross-compliance would serve as a further check on the amount of funds dispersed to the new member states.

Farmers in new member states would have difficultly meeting and adhering to these new standards, resulting in reductions in the funds paid to them. Countering some of these effects, modulation would allow some funds to be redirected from richer to poorer countries The MTR was the last opportunity to reform the CAP before the candidate countries would be full members of the European Union, and thus party to CAP negotiations. Unlike previous reforms, it would be much risker to put off or delay making reforms to the operation of the CAP. Even adopting reforms that were optional but not binding, as had been done in the past, was risky. If these changes, ones that were necessary to save the CAP but were deeply unpopular in the East, were not taken immediately, they would not be in the future because the new member states would band together to block them. The only component of Fischler’s proposal that was significantly revised by the Commission was dynamic modulation. The Commission altered the rules governing eligibility for modulation and income payment limits. Though the revised proposal maintained an exemption for farms earning less than €5,000, it added a provision stating that only those farms earning over €50,000 would be subjected to the full 19% reduction in direct income payments prescribed by modulation in order to ensure that small holders would not be targeted. In addition, the final version of the Commission proposal removed the €300,000 limit on total income payments. The Commission also revised how the money collected under dynamic modulation would be redistributed. The new version significantly reduced the amount of money that would be directed to general rural development objectives and increased the amount that was to be set aside to fund future CAP reforms. This change was made in order to accommodate the rules that emerged from the Chirac-Schröder deal at the Berlin Summit in 2002. Specifically, it ensured that there would be some funds in reserve to uphold the agreement from the deal that allowed for a 1% annual increase in the CAP budget. These amendments to the Commission’s proposal were important victories for both larger and small farmers. Larger farmers avoided a cap on how much support they could receive and small farmers were granted important exemptions and protections from reductions in their income payments under dynamic modulation. After review and revision by the Commission, the official package of proposals was sent to the European Council on 23 January 2003. Among the member states, France and UK were the key players. France led the effort to block the reform while the UK was the primary member state that Fischler worked with to achieve the necessary votes to pass his reforms via Qualified Majority Voting . France was the leader of the anti-reform camp and used its relationship with Germany to cement a blocking minority, while the UK proved central to breaking the French-led blocking minority. Three groups emerged after the reforms were announced. The first group, the pro-reform coalition, consisted of the Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. This group of countries favored reforms that would make the CAP more market-oriented. Sweden was a vocal new partner of the pro-reform club. Upon joining the EU, Sweden had been required to reintroduce subsidies, which the government had removed in the early 1990s after a period of substantial agricultural policy reform . Sweden was thus a strong supporter of reforms that would move the CAP in a market-oriented direction. Other members of this group had long been proponents of market-oriented reforms. Agriculture in each of these countries was marked by the predominance of large holdings and/or highly efficient farming. Agricultural and political elites expressed the belief that their farmers, in general, would benefit from freer competition and the removal of support programs that served to prop up inefficient competitors in other member states. Within this group, the UK also objected to modulation. As one of the member states with the largest farms, the British felt that this policy, if adopted, would disproportionately negatively affect its farmers.