The EU institutions made progress on Tuesday 25 and Wednesday 26 May in the negotiations on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, there are still significant differences on the modalities of the eco-regimes and on some of the rules of the common market organisation (CMO).
After a day of trilogue between the three institutions concerned (EU Council, European Parliament, and Commission) on Tuesday 25 May, the President of the Agriculture Council, Maria do Céu Antunes, sounded out her counterparts on the first day of the Agriculture Council, Wednesday 26 May, “on the margins of flexibility she might have” to finalise an agreement with the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12724/12). She said the time has come to take “the final step” on CAP reform, which should be in place by early 2023.
Strategic plans. Concerning the targeting of direct payments, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have not yet reached an agreement, but a compromise seems to be emerging around a compulsory redistributive payment of 10% of the first pillar budget (direct aid and market expenditure).
EU countries have insisted on the voluntary nature of the instruments (capping, degressivity). Austria is against a mandatory redistribution payment.
“A compulsory redistributive payment combined with a derogation where Member States can demonstrate that they adequately address redistributive needs with other instruments seems to be a valid solution”, said Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski.
On the modalities for capping aid, Italy asked that 100% of labour costs be maintained, and not 50% (in the last compromise text).
Discussions on ‘green architecture’ are difficult. The EU Council is ready to make an effort on the percentage of eco-regimes (22% of direct aids in 2023 and 25% from 2025), provided that the flexibilities are maintained on: – the two-year learning period (with no financial consequences if the threshold is not met, France insists); – compensation mechanisms between the first and second pillars (rural development).
The European Parliament is calling for 30% eco-regimes and a compulsory points-based scoring system, much to the dismay of the EU Council. Some delegations, such as the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and Germany, accept 30%.
“We are very close to a satisfactory and ambitious agreement on eco-regimes and cross-compliance”, said Mr Wojciechowski.
On the subject of good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC), several delegations (including France and Luxembourg) in the Council of the EU reiterated their call for crop diversification to be recognised as a practice equivalent to crop rotation (GAEC 8).
Concerning GAEC 9, a compromise on the table foresees an increase to 4% of the minimum percentage of non-productive areas on arable land. The Commission advocated “a minimum of at least 4% of arable land by 2023 and at least 6% by 2027”.
As a compromise, support for young farmers should be 3% of total direct payments.
Most delegations do not wish to go beyond 85% on the internal convergence rate at the end of the programming period, whereas Parliament is calling for 100%.
Social conditionality. Discussions included social conditionality integrated into the strategic plans. Parliament proposes that a system of penalties be created for farmers found in breach of national and EU labour law (https://bit.ly/3fMRmBV ). Controls would be carried out by the existing national authorities. They would send a list of the infringements detected to the payment agencies at least once a year. Administrative penalties would be proportionate to the gravity of the circumstances. The Parliament is calling for the system to be introduced as early as 2023, but the Commission prefers 2025, to give the Member States time.
Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, and France are in favour of social conditionality, while most other delegations are against it.
As regards the regulation on the common market organisation (CMO), the Parliament/EU Council differences continue to concern: – maximum residue levels for pesticides in imports; – the addition of sugar to the list of products eligible for intervention (a majority in the Council is against this); – the content of the joint declaration on trade.
France supported the draft declaration calling for “the same requirements” as those of the EU “for imported products”.
On the horizontal regulation, the debates focus in particular on the modalities of the reserve for agricultural crises. The EU Council defends €450 million per year. A €1.5 billion reserve, as proposed by the European Parliament, is not possible, the Commissioner for Agriculture admitted.
Trilogue negotiations continued on Wednesday evening on all three texts. The Agriculture Council will take stock on Thursday 27 May, with a view to concluding the discussions on Thursday or Friday. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)