The three EU institutions negotiated throughout the day on Thursday 27 May in order to seal a political agreement on the main elements of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (see EUROPE 12727/1).
The most bitterly debated points are those linked to the green architecture (eco-regimes, cross-compliance), the CAP’s social dimension, and the methods of targeting direct aid (redistributive payment, capping, degressivity).
On Thursday morning, the Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council organised meetings with groups of agriculture ministers, in the presence of the European Commission, to evaluate the compromise proposals to be presented during the trilogues scheduled for the afternoon with the European Parliament.
A working lunch of the EU-27 ministers took place on this issue and lasted until early afternoon.
Battle of numbers on eco-regimes. On Wednesday, the Commission tabled a proposal with two options for the eco-regime envelope: either 25% of the first pillar (direct aid and market expenditure) over the whole period, or 22% in 2023 and then an increase to 30%. For the two-year ‘pilot phase’, it advocates a minimum threshold of 20%, with the possibility to transfer unspent funds. The Commission also wishes to limit the flexibility requested by the Member States to set the unit amounts of intervention to the years 2023 and 2024.
For the second pillar (rural development), the Commission proposes a 40% ‘green’ budget, including 40% of expenditure for areas with natural handicaps.
The Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council presented a counter-proposal, broadly supported by ministers on Wednesday evening, providing for 22% per year for eco-regimes in 2023-2024 and 25% from 2025 onwards. During the learning period (pilot phase), a minimum threshold of 18% should be reached, with the possibility of transferring unused funds to other direct payments.
The Portuguese Presidency proposed a figure of 33% of the second pillar for green measures, with a 60% weighting for animal welfare and taking into account areas with natural handicaps.
The Parliament added to the Commission’s offer (alignment with the European Green Deal and 30% of investments for climate and environment), but these suggestions were rejected by the Member States.
The Commission’s role is under scrutiny. “I would suggest to the EU Council to be a bit more ambitious with regard to the second pillar”, said Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski. The Executive Vice-President in charge of the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, also pushed for an ambitious agreement on the green architecture of the future CAP.
Mr Wojciechowski also explained how the second pillar funds are spent on climate and environment in the 2014-2020 budget. “In the EU as a whole, 42% of expenditure is allocated to climate and environment-related activities”, he stressed, comparing it to the 33% proposed by the EU Council. “We are already at a level of 42% which is the current status quo”, he stressed. “Of course, there are disparities between Member States, but there are only six Member States that currently spend less than 40%”, the Commissioner continued. “What you are suggesting is lower than the current figures”, he told the EU Council.
“Of the two compromise proposals, there is one that could win collegial support, that of the Portuguese Presidency, and another on which it is illusory to believe that we will have a compromise”, said the French minister, Julien Denormandie.
Spain’s Luis Planas praised the Portuguese Presidency’s proposal and criticised Mr Wojciechowski. “The Commission has the role of honest broker, of bridge builder”, he said, supported in this by Germany. Austria’s Elisabeth Köstinger again argued that the CAP should not be responsible for implementing social policy.
New suggestions on cross compliance. The Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council presented new ideas on Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC). For GAEC 8, on crop rotation, a footnote includes intermediate crops and clarifies that a State may decide to implement other soil conservation practices, such as diversification. The EU Council provides for several exemptions, including for organic farming.
On GAEC 9 and the share of non-productive land, the Portuguese Presidency takes up the Commission’s idea of two figures: 4%, or 3% if the farmer commits a larger share to the eco-regimes.
Mr Wojciechowski defended a minimum percentage of 4% in 2023, rising to 6% in 2027.
Targeting of aid. The Portuguese Presidency suggested a minimum redistribution percentage of 10%, with an exemption clause, in duly justified cases, based on the structure of Member States’ farms or other objective criteria.
Payment for young farmers. On aid to young farmers, Parliament and the EU Council agreed on a minimum support level of 3%. But there are different views on whether or not investments should be included.
Advances. The 25 May trilogue on strategic plans reached a compromise on the definition of an active farmer. This provides for a minimum level of agricultural activity without comparing to total economic activity. The principle of a negative list is retained, but it is not mandatory.
The co-legislators also validated the definitions of young and new farmer.
As regards the small farm payment system, it will be optional and capped at 1,250 euros. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)