MEPs were divided, on Tuesday 20 October, over the environmental ambition of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The agreements between some political groups, as well as the procedure for voting on amendments, which began on Tuesday evening (it had been envisaged that it would start in the early afternoon), have provoked anger in some ranks of the Parliament (see EUROPE 12581/11).
The compromise under discussion is the one sealed between the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe groups on the strategic plans for the post-2020 CAP. It plans to devote 30% of direct aid to eco-schemes. Flexibility is provided for, allowing up to 12% of these funds to be transferred to the second pillar (rural development). It is proposed to set aside a total of 60% of the direct payment envelope for the basic payment, the redistributive payment (additional support for the first hectares of a farm), coupled support and sectoral interventions.
The three political groups also tabled at least 35% of environmental and climate measures in the second pillar of rural development (30% in the Commission's original proposal).
A plebiscite agreement. Peter Jahr (EPP, Germany), rapporteur on strategic plans, launched: “We're here to find compromises. It's easier to complain than to help make these compromises”. He therefore called on the Parliament to vote in favour of the ten or so compromise amendments and thus “give the reform a chance”.
Anne Sander (EPP, France), on behalf of her group, welcomed the agreement which allows “the gradual integration of environmental and climate issues into the CAP”. She warned: “Let's not give in to overbidding by promoting political totems and big numbers outside of any concrete reality”.
Iratxe García Pérez (S&D, Spain) also welcomed the compromise on green architecture, which allows “conditionality with an environmental stamp”.
Jérémy Decerle (Renew Europe, France) admitted to the press that they could go further, “but the economic reality of farmers means that we cannot ask them to make 180-degree changes to their farm structure”.
The Greens/EFA Group is outraged. “S&D MEPs are not up to the job, they have joined the EPP”, denounced Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany), on behalf of his group. He criticised this “grand coalition” which does not propose reform, but to maintain imbalances. He found the “chaotic” voting process (no split votes, impossibility to present amendments) scandalous. 60% of the payments would remain area-linked, benefiting large farms. In addition, 80% of the funds will continue to go to 20% of the farmers. With this reform, the European Green Deal will never see the light of day, Häusling predicted. He asked the Commission to present a new proposal reforming the CAP.
Speaking to the press, Greens/EFA group leader Ska Keller said that the “grand coalition is trying to make the Commission's bad proposal even worse”.
Democratic problem. “If you are so sure that what you are proposing is good, you must allow democratic scrutiny”, continued Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL, Ireland), addressing the groups behind the compromises. He asked the Commission to present a new proposal.
Manon Aubry (GUE/NGL ) castigated the voting process: “We do not have the full text available and translated, even though compromises were negotiated in the greatest of secrecy, even though our requests for separate votes were rejected by the European Parliament President on the basis of Rule 174 of the Rules of Procedure, which states that the President may reject requests for separate votes if they seriously and protractedly impede the European Parliament's procedures”. “This seems to me to be a huge democratic problem at a time when there is a major mistrust of European decision-makers”, Mrs Aubry concluded.
Christophe Hansen (EPP, Luxembourg), rapporteur on strategic plans in the European Parliament Committee on Environment, welcomed some results (buffer zones along rivers, protection of permanent grasslands). He denounced the “irresponsible behaviour of those who torpedoed the joint work between the Committee on Environment and the Committee on Agriculture”.
Implementation model. Rapporteur on the horizontal regulation, Ulrike Müller (Renew Europe, Germany) conceded that the new ‘implementation model’ would give countries more responsibility for control, but added that the CAP should remain common.
Mrs Müller was unable to find compromise amendments.
Amendments tabled by the EPP, S&D and ECR groups envisage keeping the current model of ‘compliance’ with the rules, while the European Commission proposes to move to a ‘performance’ system.
Markets. Éric Andrieu (S&D, France), in particular, called for his amendment on compulsory product withdrawals in the event of a crisis to be adopted in plenary. He also proposes the extension of authorisations for the planting of vines until 2050. And “we are going to allow wines below 8.5° to be wines, so that this fringe of the market does not escape the wine sector”.
With regard to the designation of meat, Mr Andrieu advocates correct consumer information and measures to ensure that vegetable proteins develop as well as animal proteins. “So we will have to complete European legislation, the important thing being to maintain equity between plant and animal proteins”, he said.
Anne Sander welcomed the “ecological barrier” that would be introduced by “banning products that do not comply with our health and environmental standards from entering the European market”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur, with the editorial staff)