The Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU was unable to have joint Council conclusions on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2020 adopted by agriculture ministers, meeting in Brussels on Monday 19 March. Right until the end, the issue of external convergence (between the levels of direct aid in the various member states), demanded by five member states (Poland, Slovakia and the three Baltic States) blocked adoption of Council conclusions and the Bulgarian Presidency was left with no alternative but to submit Presidency conclusions to the Commission. These conclusions will inform the Commission considerations as it prepares its proposals on the post-2020 CAP for presentation at the end of May or start of June.
Bulgarian Agriculture Minister Rumen Porodzanov underlined that the conclusions had the support of 23 member states and that the five others disagreed with the text on one point only. “I wouldn’t say, then, that it was a failure” he stated. “Twenty three of the twenty eight member states agreeing on a text despite (differences on external) convergence is, in itself, a very good result insofar as we don’t yet know the forthcoming EU multiannual financial framework (MFF)”, opined European Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan.
On external convergence, Poland, the Baltic countries (Lithuania in particular) and Slovakia argued strongly that an objective of swift, full external convergence be included in the text. Others – Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Austria and, to a lesser extent, Belgium and Germany – did not want any mention made whatsoever as it depends on the multiannual financial framework. For others, like France, the problem was the swiftness and fullness of the convergence, not the principle behind it. No form of words could be found to satisfy the whole Council. Ultimately, the Presidency conclusions state only that the points of view on this issue differ among member states and that further discussions will be needed as part of the MFF negotiations.
A further point was the subject of debate, though not to the same extent: coupled aid. Some delegations, such as those of the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and above all Germany, called for the paragraph relating to coupled payments (linked to production) to state that these payments should remain limited. Germany is the only member state to have totally ended this type of aid. Most member states, however, support these payments. As Commissioner Hogan underlined leaving the meeting: “Only Germany doesn’t want them. The others back them and this will be reflected in the Commission’s legislative proposal”.
Beyond these differences, member states are by and large in agreement on a new implementation model (subsidiarity) but underline that care must be taken not to “fragment” the CAP.
The NGO Greenpeace was unhappy that agriculture ministers had ignored the impact on public health and the environment of the European agricultural system, in particular the intensive meat and dairy sector, responsible for “as much as 17 per cent of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, and is a major source of water, soil and air pollution”. (Original version in French)