EU agriculture ministers were rather divided on the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) proposals to support the fight against climate change and environmental improvement.
The Agriculture Council discussed the ‘green architecture’ proposed by the European Commission in the proposals on the future CAP. On this issue, the voluntary or mandatory nature of the measures and the level of ambition have divided the Member States. However, in general, the vast majority of ministers supported a higher level of ambition with regard to environmental measures for the CAP.
An adequate budget. Several agriculture ministers (including those of Poland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Hungary, Austria, Croatia and Malta) have insisted on the need to have an agricultural budget commensurate with the stated ambitions in the environmental field.
“You can't meet challenges with less money”, said the Polish minister, who “doesn't believe in miracles”. The Italian minister said that it is necessary avoid attacking the agricultural budget.
France recalled that it wanted the CAP budget to be maintained at its current level over the 2021-2027 period. The Commission, in its proposals on the EU's multiannual financial framework (MFF) after 2020, foresees a 5% cut in the agricultural budget.
An argument for the European Council. “How will you justify that we need more funds for the CAP?” asked EU Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan of the ministers.
According to Phil Hogan, if there is a “clear signal” from EU Agriculture Ministers that “the environment and climate challenge will be at the heart of the next CAP, this will be the best argument to the European Council for keeping the CAP budget strong and well-funded when the negotiations on the next MFF enter their final round”.
Green architecture is the heart of the CAP, Germany said. That country and Finland recalled that the envelopes for the two pillars of the CAP (the first on direct aids and market expenditure and the second on rural development) will be known when the EU leaders’ debates on the next MFF are completed.
Cross compliance. The new, reinforced cross compliance included in the Commission's proposal merges the current system of conditionality and greening of aid and includes several new elements. France, Spain and the Czech Republic, in particular, considered that enhanced cross compliance should apply to all farmers. The Commission's proposals on conditionality should not be watered down, Germany, supported by France, warned.
Several Member States expressed concern that enhanced conditionality could run counter to the general objective of simplification.
Divergent views were expressed on the standards and minimum requirements proposed by the Commission on which cross compliance should be based. Several countries pointed out that some requirements could rather be supported through ecological programmes or by integrating them into the scope of future advisory services (e.g., the tool for the sustainable development of agricultural holdings).
The most criticised good agricultural practices (included in cross compliance) were those on crop rotation (considered too complicated) or nutrients. The issue of permanent grassland in Natura 2000 areas should be addressed at Member State level, said some ministers, including the Austrian minister. Germany also called for flexibility on permanent grasslands.
Contrary to the current provision that an exemption from controls and sanctions related to cross compliance is applicable to small farmers participating in the small farmers’ scheme, enhanced cross compliance does not provide for an exemption at EU level. However, several countries, such as Italy, Hungary, Latvia and Malta, have requested an exemption for small farmers from controls and sanctions.
Small farmers do not create environmental problems, but they should not be excluded from controls, Commissioner Hogan stressed.
Environmental programmes. Several delegations (amongst whom Italy, Hungary, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Bulgaria) considered that Member States should be able, on a voluntary basis, to include environmental programmes in their CAP strategic plans.
On the contrary, the Commission proposes that these programmes (eco-schemes) should be mandatory for EU countries, but optional for farmers.
Several ministers, including those from France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Portugal and the Czech Republic, supported the Commission's proposal (that eco-schemes be mandatory for countries but optional for farmers). Belgium has been open to this issue.
Rural development. Agriculture ministers generally supported the proposal to set aside at least 30% of the resources of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for environmental and climate measures. Provisions on areas with natural handicaps should be included, asked some countries, such as Spain and France.
The Netherlands and Finland have even called for a more ambitious target than 30%.
France called for a minimum ceiling for both pillars.
The Romanian Presidency of the Council hopes that the EU Council will make progress on the post-2020 CAP during the next two Agriculture Councils during this semester. The European Parliament Agriculture Committee has adopted its position on the three proposals, but will not be able to vote in plenary under this parliamentary mandate. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)