Negotiations between the EU institutions on Tuesday 11 May on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) made progress on some issues, but differences persist on ‘green architecture’ (see EUROPE 12718/8).
The Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council hopes to bring the institutions to a final agreement on the three CAP reform texts by the end of May (see EUROPE 12706/1). A ‘super trilogue’ will take place from 25 to 27 May to try to reach a final compromise.
Eco-regimes. The Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council reiterated the offer of a phased approach to increase the share of aid devoted to eco-regimes from 22% to 25% by 2025. The European Parliament reportedly opposed the 2-year ‘learning phase’ sought by the EU Council. Regarding the ‘points system’ proposed by MEPs, a text suggested by the Commission was reportedly accepted.
The EU Council and Parliament reportedly agreed to the Commission’s drafting suggestions for the possibility of including ‘an incentive element’ in the calculation of payments for eco-regimes, while ensuring that this is compatible with the WTO green box.
Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC). Regarding GAEC 8, Parliament and the Commission reportedly pointed out that crop diversification would reduce the ambition of crop rotation and therefore should not be acceptable.
For GAEC 9, Parliament reportedly insisted on setting a target not only at farm level but also at Member State level. However, the EU Council considers that these provisions would increase the administrative burden.
So there is no agreement yet on these GAECs. Further discussions are needed at both technical and political levels.
Flexibility between pillars. Parliament reportedly indicated that it could accept the rates set out in the EU Council mandate, which are in line with the European Council conclusions. Parliament reportedly linked flexibility and the ‘internal convergence’ of aid. Parliament called for this internal convergence to reach 100%, instead of the 85% suggested by the EU Council Presidency (and the 75% figure in the EU Council mandate).
Targeting of direct payments. Parliament and the EU Council reportedly agreed, with regard to capping, degressivity of aid, and redistributive payment, to set an amount to be distributed to small and medium-sized farms and to allow Member States to choose which of these mechanisms (or a combination of them) to use to achieve this amount. The EU Council Presidency reportedly proposed a percentage of 7.5%, as opposed to 12% from the Commission.
Active farmer and young farmer. Agreement in principle was reached on a mandatory definition of an active farmer, which would not include any comparison with other economic activities and would have an optional ‘negative list’.
Regarding support for young farmers, Parliament is reportedly willing to accept the 3% suggested by the Portuguese Presidency (with support under both pillars of the CAP, i.e. direct aid and rural development).
Parliament reportedly agreed to remove the €1,250 threshold for support to small farmers, provided that it is replaced by a limit of 5 hectares.
Coupled support. The co-legislators reportedly agreed on the list of eligible products, which is expected to exclude non-food crops and peppers and include starch potatoes, ‘legume/grass’ mixtures, and table olives. The decision on support for cattle that might be used for bullfighting has been postponed.
Social dimension. The co-legislators reportedly expressed their willingness to work with the Commission on an appropriate way to take into account the social dimension in the CAP, without creating an excessive administrative burden. Parliament has reportedly indicated that it will prepare a new document, with the support of the Commission, with a view to reaching an agreement at the ‘super trilogue’ on 25-27 May. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)