On Tuesday 29 January in Brussels, MEPs from the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development noted the differences amongst them on many aspects of the proposals on the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The European Parliament Agriculture Committee debated amendments to the three legislative proposals on the post-2020 CAP. Many MEPs expressed doubts about the possibility of reaching an agreement in Parliament on this complex issue before the European elections in May 2019, due in particular to uncertainties about the outcome of negotiations on the EU's multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027.
"Everything is still open, even if we have worked hard", said the rapporteur on future strategic plans, Esther Herranz García (EPP, Spain). Parliament's Agriculture Committee plans to vote on the CAP texts in March. 5,400 amendments have been tabled on the strategic plans. Ms Herranz García criticised some MEPs for "refusing to negotiate”.
The capping of subsidies is a very divisive issue. Ms Herranz García proposes a ceiling on aid of €150,000, above which support would be reduced by 25%. This reduction would not apply if the Member State devotes 50% of its national envelope to redistribution payments. "The deputies are divided, there is no clear signal", said Ms Herranz García.
It was not possible to agree on a proposal on minimum requirements for direct payments, the rapporteur also pointed out. This proposal was therefore withdrawn.
The discussion is still open on Article 18 (depopulated areas, areas with natural handicaps).
On payment entitlements, doubts remain as to the date to be included, as it depends on the date of entry into force of the regulations on the new CAP. The European Parliament Legal Service has been consulted on this subject.
On indicators, the EPP, Liberals and the ECR group "follow our lead", unlike the S&D group, said Ms Herranz García. There is also no consensus on how to support young farmers.
On the different definitions, there is no agreement on the concept of 'true farmer'. "We have not made much progress on the subject" or on the issue of ‘permanent grasslands’. On the definitions of 'young farmers' and 'new entrants to the agricultural sector', compromise is possible, the rapporteur said.
Ms Herranz García stressed the need to strengthen the common aspect of the CAP through the conditionality of aid. "We have more or less reached an agreement, even if there are still different points of view, particularly on the inclusion of the social chapter", she stressed.
One of the important points concerns the identification of livestock (eartags) and the sanctions that could be imposed. This punishment of the producer is considered excessive by the EPP Group.
Maria Noichl (S&D, Germany) criticised the rapporteur's optimism: "We are not on the right track at all", she said, referring to the divisions that exist over the cap on subsidies, permanent grasslands and young farmers. The question of the binding nature "divides us", she said. "I don't know if we will be able to find a compromise that can be supported by different political groups", concluded Ms Noichl.
James Nicholson (CRE, UK) and others expressed doubts about the possibility of reaching a consensus before the May elections.
Financing and management. Ms Ulrike Müller (ALDE, Germany), the rapporteur, said that 863 amendments had been tabled on this text and that the main objective would be to "simplify the rules as much as possible". The two main topics are: - move from a compliance system (control systems) to a performance-based system; - the crisis reserve: more than 50 amendments have been tabled, and the rapporteur proposes a "true reserve" used only in the event of a crisis, i.e. not to intervene in the markets. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)