At their meeting in Brussels on Monday 6 March, EU agriculture ministers were divided over the possible rebalancing between the direct support and rural development pillars of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
In the Agriculture Council debate on the future of the CAP, some ministers were of the opinion that the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU – Brexit – would cause some disruption (see EUROPE 11739). “It is difficult to make a significant contribution to this debate because of the uncertainty around Brexit”, acknowledged Maltese Agriculture Minister Roderick Galdes, the president in office of this Council.
Several countries, including Ireland, the Netherlands and France, expressed their concerns at the potential impact of Brexit on the CAP budget. In France’s view, Brexit massively complicates prospects for having a reformed CAP in force in 2021.
Numerous ministers highlighted the need for more to be done on simplifying the rules, and European Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan announced a further raft of measures in April.
Environment is a key issue for CAP. Protection of the environment and the sustainability of agriculture will remain the priorities for the post-2020 CAP, from what several ministers said. Greening would remain a major issue for the CAP, according to some delegations. France suggested the possibility of introducing a system of environmental contracts with producers, as a way of moving away from a system based solely on standards and monitoring. Several countries were unhappy that delegated acts allow the Commission to revisit political agreements reached on reform of the CAP.
Rebalancing between the two pillars? The Maltese Presidency of the Council asked ministers if they agreed with the principle of rebalancing funding between the two pillars by means of transfers of credits. Only a small minority of member states is believed to have come out in favour of this rebalancing. Several ministers, including Germany’s, argued for maintaining a strong first pillar, while others, such as those of Poland and Sweden, indicated their preference for a second pillar (rural development) stronger than the first (direct support and market spending). A majority of states said there was a need for greater flexibility between the pillars in order to be able better to respond to specific challenges.
Convergence of aid. The newer member states called for convergence of direct payments. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary argued that it was important to retain the (optional) coupled aid system. The Netherlands once again stated its desire for a common agriculture and food policy. Italy felt it necessary to review the system of aid per hectare, which it finds does not benefit it greatly. France repeated its idea of a third CAP pillar devoted to risk and crisis-management tools. It says that “something counter-cyclical needs to be put into (first pillar) aid” (system of precautionary saving). Lastly, several countries spoke of the need for initiatives to ensure generational renewals and to make it easier for young farmers to set up.
Commissioner Hogan was less than forthcoming on how he views the future CAP, indicating that he was waiting at least to have the summary of responses to the public consultation launched a short time ago on how to modernise and simplify the CAP. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)