Negotiators from the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission found on 28 May, after 3 days of intense negotiations, that they were unable to reach a political agreement on the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which will enter into force on 1 January 2023 (see EUROPE 12729/6).
Technical and political discussions will resume with a view to finalising the talks before the end of June. A new Agriculture Council is scheduled for 28-29 June.
Unsurprisingly, it was on green architecture that the debates were the most difficult. The European Parliament, supported by the European Commission, has demands that the Agriculture Ministers of the EU27 refuse to meet.
On the issue of eco-regimes, the negotiators seem to be close to a compromise. They could agree on 25% of the first pillar funds to be reserved for them from 2023. The EU Council set a ‘floor’ of 18% for eco-regimes (money not used between 18 and 25% can be redistributed in decoupled payments), while Parliament called for a minimum floor of 22% in 2023 and 23% in 2024.
Concerning the effort in the second pillar of the CAP (rural development), a compromise is possible between the EU institutions on an effort of 35-37% of environmental and climate related measures.
Crop rotation and non-productive areas. Another complicated issue, again around environmental questions, is cross-compliance, in particular Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) numbers 8 and 9 concerning, respectively, the obligation of crop rotation and the percentage to be devoted to non-productive areas.
The Portuguese Presidency of the Council has proposed a footnote to GAEC 8 that includes intermediate crops and specifies that a state may decide to implement “other soil conservation practices, such as diversification”. Parliament refuses to allow intermediate crops to be part of the crop rotation.
On GAEC 9, the Portuguese Presidency would like to provide two figures: 4% of non-productive areas, or 3%, if the farmer commits to a larger share of the eco-regimes. “Today, we are at 5%”, said Eric Andrieu (S&D, France). Because of this, Parliament wants a minimum of 5%. The Commission has advocated a minimum percentage of 4% in 2023, rising to 6% in 2027.
Beyond these environmental issues, a number of other dossiers remain on the table: products eligible for intervention (Parliament is arguing for sugar to be added to the list while a qualified majority in the EU Council is against it); the agricultural crisis reserve (the Parliament wants to make it much more functional); the issue of ‘mirror clauses’ for maximum residue levels (see other news); payments to young farmers (a compromise is emerging around 3% of direct aid, but there are differing views on whether or not to include investments); and the mechanism for redistributing payments to smaller farms.
On this last point, the negotiators almost agreed on a minimum envelope of 10% to be redistributed to the smallest farms. However, as in the case of green architecture, it was the derogations sought by the EU27 that prevented an agreement being reached. Member States would like to add an exemption clause in duly justified cases based on the structure of Member States’ agricultural holdings or other objective criteria.
The last blocking point is social conditionality. Parliament proposes that a system of penalties be created for farmers found in breach of national and EU labour law. A compromise is close on the text proposed by the EU Council, although the date of application of the system needs to be clarified. Parliament is calling for social conditionality to be applied from 2023, while the Council of the EU is aiming for 2025. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)