The majority of EU agriculture ministers were open to the ideas of the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU to give countries more flexibility on climate and environment spending under the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). But the European Commission and other countries such as Italy, Belgium and Latvia have criticised the Finnish Presidency’s suggestions. The Commission hopes to achieve maximum progress in the EU Council negotiations on the post-2020 CAP by the end of the year.
The Finnish Presidency of the EU Council has proposed introducing a common percentage or fixed amount covering the entire CAP strategic plan (i.e., pillars one and two – ‘direct aid’ and ‘rural development’, respectively) to be devoted to environment and climate objectives (see EUROPE 12369/15, 12366/9).
The Agriculture Council discussed some elements of the future CAP’s ‘green architecture’. The Finnish Presidency proposes removing the objective of devoting 30% of rural development expenditure (second pillar of the CAP) to climate-friendly actions and instead allowing Member States to allocate a certain percentage of their total CAP envelope (first and second pillars combined) to measures in support of these climate objectives. Among the measures that could be put on the books: first pillar eco-regimes, second pillar agri-environmental measures, a percentage of support for less-favoured areas (while the European Commission proposes that such support should not be included in the 30% target for rural development), certain sectoral interventions, as well as investments, advisory services, knowledge transfer and cooperation related to environmental and climate objectives.
In a round table discussion at the EU Council, a majority of EU agriculture ministers (France, Germany, Austria, Austria, Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic) supported the Finnish Presidency’s ideas on a common percentage for both pillars of the CAP for expenditure related to climate and environmental objectives. France welcomed this common percentage and supported the Finnish Presidency’s idea of providing a closed list of criteria for calculating this percentage. France, like Portugal, has also defended a mandatory eco-regime in the first pillar of the CAP.
Spain also welcomed the Finnish ideas, while advocating the inclusion of basic income support, including redistributive payments and support for young farmers, among the criteria.
Denmark called for a common percentage “as high as possible” and insisted that only green interventions should be counted. Sweden has also defended large amounts of climate funding for both pillar one and pillar two.
For Germany, the Finnish proposal “goes in the right direction” and measures in the second pillar are sometimes more effective than those in the first pillar.
The disgruntled. Latvia said it was “not in favour” of the Presidency’s proposal for a common percentage and stressed the need to include direct payments among the criteria. Belgium also “prefers the Commission's initial proposal”, on the grounds that fixed amounts must be supported by figures. Belgium does not like the closed list of criteria, preferring to give countries the flexibility to define the most appropriate interventions.
Belgium is against the derogations granted to small farms with regard to the conditionality of aid, in order to respect the principle of fair competition.
For Italy, the CAP must set ambitious climate targets. However, the proposals of the Commission or the Finnish Presidency do not provide for anything on the adaptation of risk management instruments, Italy regretted (mutual funds, in particular). The fixing of a single percentage is not the solution, according to Italy, which has also advocated an optional, non-binding eco-regime.
European Commissioner Phil Hogan said that the Finnish Presidency’s suggestions could “reduce the environmental and climate ambition” of the post-2020 CAP.
Poland and Hungary consider it premature to talk about any percentage of the CAP to be devoted to climate change, while negotiations on the EU’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 have not yet been completed. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)