MEP Éric Andrieu (S&D, France), rapporteur on the ‘Common Market Organisation’ (CMO) part of the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), will vote next week against the report on the Regulation on strategic plans because he does not want to sign a blank cheque, he explained to EUROPE in an interview on 16 November. He also fears a renationalisation of the CAP and is in favour of binding ‘European Green Deal’ targets in the strategic plans currently being submitted by the Member States. (Interview by Lionel Changeur)
Agence Europe - What is your frame of mind before the plenary vote on the CAP?
Éric Andrieu - In actuality, what we are being asked to do is to vote on a blank cheque, because we do not know the content of the national strategic plans for the CAP, which must be submitted to the Commission by the Member States before the end of 2021. And what little is known about eco-regime proposals shows that this is greenwashing. This is a complete disregard for European democracy. I will therefore vote against the Regulation on strategic plans.
Do you think there will be delays in the implementation of the reform?
Yes, there will be delays in the submission of national strategic plans. Above all, I question the Commission’s ability to have a national plan modified by 1 January 2022 on the grounds that it does not comply with the level of requirements of the strategies arising from the ‘European Green Deal’. I also wonder about the instruments the Commission has to encourage countries to be more demanding.
So you think the process is not working properly?
The common character of the CAP has been removed. We are depending on the ability of Member States to produce ambitious proposals. I call this renationalisation. The CAP has been cut into 27 small pieces, while the stakes are global.
There is also the problem of strategic stocks, particularly of cereals; WTO rules prohibit them, but China and India do not care, while the European Union acts the good student when climate change is no longer in question. I repeat, the WTO rules must be changed and the European institutions must support the change.
Do you support binding ‘Green Deal’ targets in the strategic plans for the CAP?
Yes, because the model has to change. If the impact of agriculture and food on human health, biodiversity and climate is not taken into account, agriculture will remain marginal in the debate, especially in the budget debate.
What do you think of the studies (including the one by the Joint Research Centre, JRC) on the effects of the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy?
It is the biggest beneficiaries of the CAP, the agro-industry and agrochemicals, who are stomping their feet because they want nothing to change. However, it is the common interest that should prevail. A change of model is necessary, particularly in favour of agroecology and organic production. The Commission is also starting to move in this direction.
Faced with soaring input prices or the pigmeat crisis, the Commission does not seem to have the tools to intervene. Why do you think this is?
The Commission must get away from the dogma that agricultural markets are fundamentally stable: cereal prices have risen 50% in the last six months, controlling food prices is the most important of the macroeconomic policies. This volatility and the high inflation that will follow are not good for anyone. Crisis management tools must therefore be rehabilitated.
How do you think the EU could move forward under the French Presidency of the EU Council on the issues of reciprocity of the so-called mirror clauses?
What remains to be addressed is the issue of imported third country products produced with pesticides banned in Europe, which have an effect on biodiversity. The Commission is making progress on this issue in international fora, but the derogations requested on neonicotinoids, for example, are holding up the process.
We lost a year on these mirror clauses. In the CMO negotiations, I defended an Article (188a) aimed at banning these imported products containing pesticides banned in the EU. It was finally decided to draft a joint statement, according to which the Commission should provide a report by the end of June 2022 with scenarios for dealing with the biodiversity component of import tolerances. If France had really been invested on the matter and fought to obtain a majority in the EU Council on this issue, we would not be in this situation. We could have already dealt with the problem in the CMO.
What are the key measures in your report on the CMO?
We have introduced greater reactivity in the regulatory tools, for example on the voluntary withdrawal of products in the event of a crisis in a sector, and greater transparency with observatories applied to all sectors that will have to closely monitor stocks and margins. On viticulture, we obtained the extension until 2045 of vine planting authorisations, de-alcoholisation, digital labelling via a QR code, and the recognition of hybrid varieties.
We have also obtained derogations from competition law, notably for geographical indications where the control of supply is extended to all sectors and where recommendations on grape prices can be given by inter-professional organisations in order to have an equitable sharing of the value.