Negotiators from the three EU institutions failed, on Friday 28 May, to find common ground after three days of bitter debate on the main elements of the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
They will therefore meet in June to try to overcome the differences that were too great, notably on the modalities of the green architecture (eco-scheme, conditionality). An informal meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers is scheduled for 14-15 June in Portugal and a normal EU Council session is scheduled for 28-29 June. Therefore, there is still time to conclude before the end of the Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council (see EUROPE 12728/5).
The Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council presented, on Thursday 27 May, a compromise offer which was corrected by the European Parliament. On Friday morning, faced with the MEPs’ demands, it decided to break off negotiations, as it did not have the mandate to grant further concessions to the Parliament on behalf of the EU Council.
MEPs initially called for eco-schemes to account for at least 30% of direct payments to farmers. EU countries have said they are ready to accept: - a level of 25% over the whole period (compared to 20% in the EU Council’s original mandate), but with conditions; - a ‘floor’ level of 18% with full flexibility to transfer unused funds above this 18% floor level.
According to the European Parliament’s latest counter-proposal on Thursday night, seen by EUROPE, MEPs have accepted eco-schemes of 25% over the whole period, but a floor of 22% in 2023 and 23% in 2024.
Furthermore, the EU Council agreed to a percentage of 35% of rural development funds (second pillar) to be spent on climate and environment measures, while the Parliament called for at least 37%.
In addition, MEPs called for more ambitious measures on Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC), including a minimum of 5% of arable farmland dedicated to non-productive areas (4% in the EU Council's offer), and at least 10% at Member State level.
On the targeting of support, a compromise seemed within reach in favour of a redistributive payment of up to 10% of direct payments “with the possibility of derogation for countries where it is duly demonstrated in the CAP strategic plan that the redistributive needs are covered by other tools, including, for example, capping/degressivity or internal convergence”.
However, the European Parliament did not want to include the efforts of internal convergence of support in the redistribution of aids and asked for an internal convergence of 100% (against 85% according to the EU Council’s offer) for the 2026 support applications. A 100% internal convergence of support was unacceptable to the EU Council.
Another major difference is that the ministers refuse to make subsidies to farmers conditional on compliance with social standards, as demanded by MEPs, especially the social democrats. The Parliament wants to introduce a system of sanctions against those who do not respect social and labour law standards.
The Portuguese Presidency has again refused to include the issue of pesticide residues in imported products in the regulation on the common market organisation (CMO). It prefers to raise the issue in a political statement on trade, which provoked the ire of MEPs.
There are two opposing logics. Integrating all environmental objectives into the CAP is “impractical” and undermines any predictability of farmers’ incomes, according to the office of French Minister Julien Denormandie.
“We want to reach an agreement, but not at any price”, explained, on Friday, the Portuguese minister Maria do Céu Antunes, who is negotiating on behalf of the States. “We should not only look at the percentage of eco-schemes, but also at the other conditions” of the CAP leading to the same goal, she argued, defending the “flexibility” of States to define their own agricultural policy instruments.
For Peter Jahr (EPP, Germany), the compromise was however “within reach” on the strategic plans, including the one for eco-schemes.
The European Parliament is ready to resume negotiations, but only if the EU Council shows more flexibility, argued Norbert Lins (EPP, Germany), Chair of the Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture.
Benoît Biteau (Greens/EFA, France) confirmed, in front of the press, “the tensions” between the EU Council and the Parliament in these negotiations. “The European Parliament is a co-legislator and the EU Council should not look down on MEPs”, he said. On the substance, he regretted during the negotiations “an even greater weakening” of the proposals on the ‘green’ component of the CAP.
“The positions of the European Parliament and the EU Council are currently too far apart. We will try in June to find an agreement, but everyone must take responsibility”, said Anne Sander (EPP, France).
We need to evaluate and present new compromises, advised Ulrike Müller (Renew Europe, Germany), rapporteur on the horizontal regulation, who called for “added value” for farmers and the environment.
Eric Andrieu (S&D, France), rapporteur on the CMO, believes that an agreement will be reached by the end of June. He called for an “ambitious” project for the CAP. “We need to continue the work and learn to listen to each other, and the Commission must facilitate the search for agreements”, he said. Mr Andrieu noted the progress on crisis management tools, professional organisations, “there is not much missing for us to succeed”.
Link to the latest European Parliament position on the night of 27 May (which amends the EU Council’s offer): https://bit.ly/3p0s7As (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)