Twenty member state agriculture ministers, meeting in Luxembourg on Monday 18 June, expressed their opposition to any cut in agricultural funding over the 2021-2027 period (see EUROPE 12039).
In its proposals on the EU’s 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), the European Commission has put forward a 5% reduction in agricultural spending.
The French minister, Stéphane Travert, presented a joint statement with Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain calling for the agricultural budget to be maintained at its current level. The document was officially supported by nine other countries: Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. The Austrian minister also criticised the cut in second pillar (rural development) spending.
“You haven’t managed to convince us”, Greece told Commissioner Phil Hogan. The Greek minister called for, “at least, preservation of the agriculture budget”. He opposed transferring funding between the pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Like other ministers, he feared the repatriation of the CAP.
Italian minister, Gian Marco Centinaio, stated that the proposal fell short of people’s expectations. Budget cuts send the wrong signal, he said. Italy was critical of the over-complexity of the strategic plan system.
The Austrian minister also criticised the cut in second pillar (rural development) expenditure. Estonia also protested at the cut in the 2021-2027 agriculture budget.
Luis Planas Puchades, the Spanish minister, highlighted the need for greater fiscal capacity. “We are against the reduction of the agriculture budget.” He said he would accept the challenge posed by subsidiarity but was adamant that the agricultural policy must remain common and any increase in bureaucracy must be avoided.
Belgium supported the spirit of the joint statement and expressed concern at cuts in funding, particularly those affecting rural development. Belgium opposed the external convergence of aid.
Sweden was quite positive about the proposals on the table, notably on the environment and climate. Nonetheless, conditionality is too complicated, in the view of the Swedish minister. Capping should be optional, according to Sweden (and other countries, such as Finland), also a critic of the proposed external convergence. The Czech Republic criticised capping and degressivity of aid.
Germany took the view that capping should be optional. The second pillar must remain a key instrument, stated Julia Klöckner, who said that she could see no simplification in the proposed system of strategic plans.
Lithuania criticised the lack of ambition on aid convergence.
Risk management. Germany, Austria and Sweden notably felt that risk management measures should remain optional. France and Belgium, on the other hand, were critical of the lack of Community measures on risk management.
Simpler CAP. “We can’t see any simplification”, said the Slovenian minister à propos the proposed strategic plans. Ireland called for a simpler CAP and one that would be attractive to young people. Ireland also argued for a solid budget and payment of funding from capping for small- and medium-scale farmers.
Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan repeated that the budgetary situation was “demanding” with the loss of €12 billion per year because of Brexit and the financing of the new EU priorities. “In that context, and in the absence of agreement on increasing the level of MS contributions to the EU budget, I regard the proposal the Commission has made for the CAP to be fair and reasonable”, he stated. He made clear that the Commission was advocating subsidiarity and not the renationalisation of the CAP. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)