Despite progress having been made on some reform issues, EU Ministers for Agriculture were of the opinion in Brussels on Monday 18 March that they were not yet ready to negotiate a political agreement on the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the near future (see EUROPE 12214/27).
The Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU wanted to bring the European Ministers for Agriculture together in June around a general approach regarding the proposals to the post-2020 CAP. However, this objective now seems unattainable due to differences on some important issues (green architecture, capping of aid) and uncertainties about the budgetary envelope that will be allocated to the CAP for the years 2021-2027.
No partial agreement. Several Ministers for Agriculture from EU countries, including Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland, Poland and Germany, have said that it will be impossible for them to agree on the post-2020 CAP, without knowing the amount of the budget that is to be allocated to this policy. However, the European Council does not foresee an agreement on the next EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) being reached before autumn 2019. Moreover, as the European Parliament does not plan to vote in plenary on the CAP under the current legislature, there is no urgency on the part of the Council to quickly conclude an agreement. The French minister, Didier Guillaume, refused the principle of “validating texts piecemeal.” The time has not yet come for a political agreement, France said. Ireland, Lithuania and Hungary also wanted to focus on the quality of work, rather than the timetable to be met. “You need to have a good overview of the funding,” explained the German Minister, Julia Klöckner.
CAP budget. The French minister defended a CAP that was “strong, with a stable budget.” The ministers, in particular the Spanish, Hungarian, Irish, French, Greek and Cypriot ministers, protested against the reduction proposed by the Commission in CAP appropriations for 2021-2027, instead calling for appropriations to be maintained at the current level.
Green architecture. The EU Council is all the more reluctant to agree over the elements of the future CAP as it has yet to discuss the topic of 'green architecture' (strengthening cross-compliance, ecological programme from the ‘direct aid and agri-environmental measures' pillar, part of the second pillar of the CAP). However, this subject, which will be discussed at a technical level in April, constitutes a priority for Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, according to ministers from these countries. "In respect of climate protection, we must consider the use of direct payments," the German minister emphasised.
Controversial coupled support. On behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary, the Czech delegation has requested an increase in the level of coupled income support under the post-2020 CAP (see EUROPE 12215/16). These countries have called for an increase in the level of coupled support to reach 23% with an additional 2% for vegetable protein, compared to current levels of 13% + 2% and the levels in the Commission's proposal of 10% and 2%. France has defended having a single cap of 15%. Italy and Poland have essentially asked to keep the current flexibility regarding the level of coupled support. Finland has also called for the continuation of coupled support at its current level.
Of a different opinion, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands advocated the abolition of coupled support, which they believed would harm competition. The Commission also defended its proposal (10% plus 2%).
Member States were divided over the modalities and principle of reducing direct payments. Germany wanted the capping and degressivity of aid to be optional measures. Estonia and Finland are also of the opinion that the cap should be optional. In general, Ministers believed that the deduction of labour costs (under the support ceiling) should be optional.
Many delegations supported the optional nature of complementary redistributive support (first-hectare premium) over income.
Poland has spoken out in favour of fairer income support. Greece has called for a better distribution of support between small and large companies.
Although the views of Member States differ, there is a preference (Spain, Poland, Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc.) for the reintroduction of the €2,000 threshold – which the Commission wants to remove – in respect of the application of financial discipline. Nevertheless, several countries supported the abolition of this €2,000 allowance, namely Germany, France, Luxembourg, Estonia, Denmark, and Sweden.
France and Spain also recommended strengthening various risk and crisis management measures in agriculture.
Otherwise, Ministers were generally in favour of the Presidency compromise on the three proposals, including: - with regard to the definition of 'permanent grassland', maintaining the definition contained in the 'omnibus' regulation; - a voluntary definition of the concept of 'genuine farmers'; - a rate of investment aid of up to 75% or, in exceptional circumstances, of 100% for specific interventions (including agricultural and forestry infrastructure); - the striking of a balance between vine varieties by maintaining the ban currently applicable to six specific hybrid varieties and the species Vitis labrusca, while allowing the use of hybrids in PDO wines. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)