MEP Esther Herranz García (EPP, Spain), rapporteur on the strategic plans for the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), told the press on Tuesday 2 April that she considered the position reached by the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee to be “the best deal possible”.
Despite numerous criticisms of the future CAP's lack of ambition in terms of environmental protection, Ms Herranz García said she was “certain that the next European Parliament will be able to bring this matter to a successful conclusion by voting on it in plenary as soon as possible in order to start negotiations with the Council”.
116 of the 117 compromise amendments which it had negotiated were adopted in the Agriculture Committee (see EUROPE 12227/2, 12225/5). The rapporteur summarised the results of the vote, stating in particular that at least 60% of the funds in the first pillar would be allocated to basic income support for sustainability and the 'redistributive payment' (premiums for first hectares), and at least 20% of the first pillar aid should be allocated to the new climate, environment and animal welfare schemes ('eco-schemes').
“Objective alliances to move forward”. Michel Dantin (EPP, France), who worked alongside Ms Herranz García on the strategic plans, stressed that the EPP had been the only group able to ensure “real continuity” between the three texts on the future CAP. The last vote on the 'horizontal regulation' will take place on 8 April.
He said that in addition to the support of "the EPP and ALDE groups” (and the ECR) for the compromise amendments on strategic issues, in particular, "almost half of the S&D group and members of the EUL/NGL group" had agreed to vote in favour of the text, thanks in particular to progress on aid convergence. “We belong to the camp of progress”, concluded Mr Dantin.
Nicola Caputo (S&D, Italy) regretted the text's lack of ambition, particularly on the cap on aid at €100,000, which would have virtually no effect in terms of redistribution. It would have liked a cap of €60,000 and a redistribution of payments in favour of the smallest farmers.
The NGO Greenpeace regretted that the Agriculture Committee rejected amendments by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee aimed at cutting public funding for factory farms and limiting the number of animals crammed together on farms receiving EU subsidies. MEPs would also have voted against making CAP payments subject to minimum animal welfare standards (including giving farm animals enough space to move, turn around and lie down).
The European Environment Bureau (EEB) regretted that MEPs approved aid that will no longer be subject to compliance with certain minimum environmental standards.
Professional organizations rather satisfied. Pekka Pesonen, Secretary General of EU Agricultural Organisations and Cooperatives (Copa-Cogeca), welcomed the guidelines in favour of maintaining the level of direct payments, strengthening the definition of 'active farmers' and more targeted support in favour of European farmers. However, he regrets the mandatory nature of the aid cap, “because it does not take into account the differences in the farm structures in the EU”.
The CEJA (European Council of Young Farmers) welcomed the vote, but expressed disappointment at the lack of ambition regarding “generational renewal in the agricultural sector”.
The European Coordination Via Campesina is more critical. It considers that the provisions voted on limit the Commission's proposal for a more equitable distribution of aid to “a maximum of 10% of total aid”. And regrets that MEPs did not adopt the ideas on reducing aid to beneficiaries receiving between €60,000 and €100,000 in direct payments per year (degressivity). It is “shameful that the political forces of the European Parliament stand alongside a minority of less than 2% of farmers”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)