EU Agriculture Ministers indicated on Tuesday 14 May in Brussels that they did not wish to rush to reach a common position on the post-2020 proposals on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in particular due to budgetary uncertainties on the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027.
The Agriculture Council had a rather technical debate on an important aspect (the new implementation model) of the proposal on CAP strategic plans (see EUROPE 12249/10).
The budget before the amendment of the CAP. While Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan called for an early agreement in the Council of the EU to start negotiations with the European Parliament in the autumn, many ministers stressed the need to take the time to continue examining the proposals.
French Minister Didier Guillaume said that positions on the CAP "will be difficult to take until we know the content of the next multiannual financial framework (MFF)".
The Spanish Minister stressed the need to have adequate funding for the CAP, commensurate with the stated ambitions.
Austria opposed a drastic reduction in CAP appropriations. "It is difficult to talk about the technical aspects if you do not know the budgetary resources", said Polish Minister Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski.
"It is too early to take political decisions", the Danish and Dutch ministers also said. "There is still a lot of work to do", in the eyes of the Swedish delegation.
In addition, several ministers, as well as Commissioner Hogan, stressed the need to maintain the common character of the CAP. There is no question of renationalising the CAP, France in particular launched.
The direction is good, not the modalities. European ministers supported the ambitions of one of the Commission's proposals to move from a policy based on compliance to a policy based on results ('new implementation model'). The key constituting elements of the performance framework of the 'new delivery model' are the governance system, the annual performance clearance and the performance review.
But the ministers were critical of the proposed technical aspects.
"The Commission's intentions are good, but I remain concerned about how this model could work", France said. The new implementation model must allow for a CAP that is "more comprehensive and simpler for all" and not more bureaucratic, warned the country.
German Secretary of State Hermann Onko Aeikens said that further in-depth discussions were needed on the new model for implementing the CAP. "We have the impression that very complex information is required in the strategic plans and in the annual performance review", the German delegation said.
Performance review. The Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU asked the Ministers whether they considered that the review of performance and intermediate values should be scheduled on an annual basis (as proposed by the Commission) and not every 2 years (as suggested by the previous Austrian Presidency).
Several countries, such as Spain, Bulgaria, Finland, Finland, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden and Ireland, broadly supported the Romanian Presidency's approach (review once a year). Several countries call for more flexibility, including a review once every 2 years (France, Poland, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal). Some countries, such as Slovakia and Lithuania, have even requested only two performance reviews in total (one at the beginning and one at the end of the cycle).
In addition, several countries (France, Ireland) have asked to reduce the number of indicators, particularly on results.
Annual unit amounts. The Romanian Presidency asked the Ministers about the need to provide for some flexibility with regard to the annual unit amounts for non-area/animal-based interventions. Most delegations (including France, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic) advocated maximum flexibility. Germany considered that the concept of unit amounts was "dubious". (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)