In an interview with EUROPE on Saturday 17 October, rapporteur MEP on the Common Market Organisation (CMO), Eric Andrieu (S&D, France), said that the proposals on the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) do not correspond to the climate challenges. He also wonders why the rushed vote this week (comments collected by Lionel Changeur).
Agence Europe - How do you see things ahead of this week’s ‘marathon’ plenary vote on the post-2020 CAP?
Éric Andrieu - I don't understand why we have to move fast now. I do not see the need for this acceleration on the reform when there is much debate in our respective political families and when the transitional measures are about to be adopted (for 2021-2022).
Why are you going to vote against the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe compromise on the CAP strategic plans?
Since 2018, I’ve thought that the Commission’s proposal is not up to the task. There is a real danger of renationalising the CAP. Instead of giving strength to a common reform, we are redistributed crumbs to the 27 Member States. The compromise provides 30% for the eco-schemes, but it is not clear what is behind this. This will exacerbate distortions of competition and will break down Community policy. At the very least, criteria should be imposed at European level.
On the ‘implementation model’, two logics clash. There are those who want to keep the compliance system and those who support the move to a performance system. Which way are you leaning?
I support the compromise (EPP, S&D and ECR). It does not seem reasonable to me to imagine the Commission giving up control of one of the EU’s major budgets. What is proposed is a deceptive simplification, which consists of transferring to Member States the responsibility for monitoring compliance when aid is distributed. Simplification will not benefit Member States nor farmers, but only the Commission. To make sure they do not lose money, countries will set minimum targets.
It should have been the other way around.
How could the CAP better respond to the imperatives of the European Green Deal? Do you think this is more about grooming than reform?
In my opinion, what is on the table is not real reform. It is an administrative reform. It is proposed to transfer the implementation of the CAP to the Member States. It is suggested, in fact, to only increase from 30 to 35% green payments of the second pillar (rural development). Where is the structural and profound change? The ‘farm to fork’ strategy sets a target of 25% of land under organic farming by 2030. Yet the proposal contains nothing more to encourage organic farming. The S&D group will propose an amendment to encourage producers to go organic, and in the event of a market problem, it would be possible to compensate for the difference between the price of conventional farming and the price of organic.
Similarly, if we want to capture carbon, we would have to actually fund permanent grasslands. The question of pastoralism is also important. The compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps (ICHN) should be increased rather than reduced.
In your report, two subjects remain open: the designation of meat for vegetable-based products that imitate meat and the arrangements for managing production in times of crisis. What's your approach?
On the designation, there is no agreement for the moment between the groups: the European Parliament is divided: there are the pro-vegetable proteins and the pro-animal proteins. First of all, I have proposed principles, namely to provide fair information to the consumer and to treat the vegetable protein and meat sectors fairly. There are holes in the legislative racket on the meat trade designation.
My proposal: the European Commission should supplement this legislation and clarify what meat, meat cuts, pieces of meat, meat preparations and meat products are, and in particular draw up a clear list of pieces of meat whose designations must be reserved for meat.
Derogations would be possible where the designation is known, traditional and avoids confusion (steaks and burgers). Regarding derogations for vegetable protein products (soy steak, vegan burgers), the sales description should mention ‘meat-free’.
With regard to management in times of crisis, we have to get away from the myth that markets are self-regulating. The current Covid crisis proves this. The Commission should define action strategies and report annually to the EU Council and Parliament on the evaluation of its work on market management. The role of the market observatory should be extended to all sectors. The only element that has not been voted on at this stage, and which I am going to propose again in an amendment in plenary, is the compulsory withdrawal of products in the event of a serious crisis (optional withdrawal has been accepted).