Discussions held by Member States on Monday 3 June in Bucharest, on the margins of the informal meeting of European Agriculture Ministers (see other news), confirmed that many delegations are not ready to negotiate a common position on the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in June (see EUROPE 12265/12).
Barring a miracle, and despite the efforts of the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU, EU agriculture ministers are unlikely to reach a partial general approach on the future of the CAP at the EU Council meeting in Luxembourg on 18 June.
On Monday in Bucharest, Romania, the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) discussed a 'guidance document' from the Romanian Presidency on 'landing zones' (possible areas of agreement) that covered the sensitive aspects of the proposals on the future of the CAP and a revised compromise text on the regulation dealing with CAP strategic plans. The delegations mainly commented on the guidance document.
The European Commission’s representative is reported to have criticised the compromise text on the CAP strategic plans, fearing that the level of environmental ambition contained in the initial proposal (the 'green architecture') was being watered down. He is also reported to have expressed particular reservations about the definition of a 'genuine farmer', the possible exclusion of small farmers from the scope of conditionality and the changes made to the support scheme for fruit and vegetable producers.
Call for further discussions on the CAP. Many delegations in the SCA were again of the opinion that it was too early to consider a partial general approach at the Agriculture Council on 18 June and that further work was necessary at a technical level on key aspects of the reform. Some Member States suggested that the Romanian Presidency should instead prepare a progress report on the state of negotiations. The Romanian Presidency is reported to have indicated that it would communicate its decision on the next steps to delegations in the next few days.
Ongoing differences. As to the main points in the document on possible 'landing zones', delegations were divided on the following points: - the exemption of small farmers from conditionality (although delegations were generally in favour of simplifying the system of controls and penalties that apply to small farmers); - the mandatory/voluntary nature of eco-schemes (environmental programmes) for Member States; - the level of coupled support (with some delegations wanting to retain a minimum ceiling of 13% of the total direct support envelope, +2% for vegetable protein, others calling for an increase, and some pushing for progressive phasing out of coupled support); - the mandatory/voluntary nature of risk management tools; - the €2000 threshold for financial discipline (the reduction of direct aid), with several delegations wanting to retain it and others wanting to remove it (as in the Commission’s proposal).
Most delegations supported excluding investments in irrigation, as they are incompatible with keeping bodies of water in good condition, and a number of delegations agreed on voluntary checks on affiliated companies when carrying out assessments of genuine farmers. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)