Following the Council debate on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in Brussels on Monday 17 July, European Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan welcomed the opposition of several ministers to the idea of introducing co-financing of Community expenditure on direct aid and market support (first pillar of the CAP).
On the initiative of the Spanish delegation, ministers had the opportunity to discuss how the CAP might be financed after 2020, when the EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) comes to an end. Spain noted that, in the Commission’s reflection paper on the future of EU finances, four of the five scenarios would involve a significant reduction in the funding of the CAP. Several agriculture ministers supported Spain’s remarks and expressed opposition to the idea that features in the reflection paper of bringing in co-financing of first pillar expenses.
“A number of EU member states oppose any idea of co-financing first pillar payments and I can only welcome this”, Hogan said at the press conference late on Monday afternoon. “It’s important that there is a level playing field for everyone in the member states and that CAP financing is EU-based”, he went on.
Adequate funding for CAP. Agriculture ministers all want a properly funded CAP, the commissioner noted with satisfaction. Before the ministers, Hogan acknowledged, however, that “there is strong pressure to cut the CAP budget, in view of new, evolving political priorities” in the EU and resulting from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. Budgetary pressure is exacerbated by Brexit “which also changes the overall balance in the EU budget”, he said.
The Estonian Presidency of the Council of the EU made clear that ministers had, of course, asked for CAP funding to be maintained, even though the policy needs to be simplified and modernised. What is needed is “a simpler CAP to make life easier for farmers. There is a need, too, to improve the competitiveness of the sector and maintain jobs”, the Estonian minister said.
Luxembourg minister Fernand Etgen said that the member states “need a strong CAP” forming part of a common European project that requires a budget that is commensurate with the level of its ambition. “In my view, a CAP-Exit cannot be seen in any way as an alternative”, he stressed. Finland argued that the CAP must not bear the brunt of Brexit.
Among the countries that are relatively in support of a reduction in CAP direct aid, Sweden said that a way had to be found of “doing more with less”. It argued for more closely targeted support through the second pillar (rural development).
The Netherlands also backed this suggestion and noted its desire to make the CAP a food policy (removal of area payments, etc.)
Several initiatives. The Polish delegation briefed the Council on the outcome of the meeting of agriculture ministers from the Visegrad Group of countries (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) along with those of Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia. The meeting was devoted to a discussion on the CAP after 2020 and produced a joint declaration on the issue. These countries oppose co-financing of direct aid. At Monday’s Council meeting, several delegations (those of France and Spain notably) backed the requests of these countries. A group of countries (Denmark, other Scandinavian countries and the Baltic States) presented a document on simplifying the CAP.
Convergence of direct payments. The “new” member states (the Baltic States, Romania and Slovakia notably) highlighted the need to further improve convergence of direct aid. A large number of countries (such as Denmark, Luxembourg, United Kingdom and Ireland, which spoke about greening) called for greater simplification of the rules.
Several countries (including Portugal, Finland and Slovakia) again called on the Commission to take action to better combat unfair trading practices and to strengthen the position of farmers on the food supply chain. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)