An extraordinary European Council met on 1 February, with the revision of the multi-annual financial framework on its agenda. Thousands of farmers travelling from many different countries took this opportunity to converge on the European quarter of Brussels on board 1200 tractors to proclaim their objections. Seeing which way the wind was blowing, the European Commission had on the previous day announced the introduction of safeguard measures on Ukrainian chicken, eggs and sugar (see EUROPE 13340/7) and a proposal for a partial derogation from set-aside obligations in 2024 (see EUROPE 13340/8). This was insufficient to calm the leaders’ fears or, understandably, those of the protesters, who also criticised the trade policy of the EU, the bureaucracy of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the lack of decent income.
Pressure mounted on the Commission to present a programme to simplify procedures. From that moment onwards, the mandate of the ‘strategic dialogue’ was amended by dint of the urgent need to find solutions (see EUROPE A13341A4). As for the suspension of trade negotiations with Mercosur, a real thorn in the side of the farming community, the member states remained divided (see EUROPE 13341/5).
Addressing the Parliament on 6 February, Ursula von der Leyen announced her intention to withdraw the legislative proposal on halving the use of pesticides in the EU (a dossier that had ground to a halt at the Council in any case following its rejection by the members of the European Parliament) (see EUROPE 13344/10); this was done on the 21st. The Commission was offering a further sop to the farming community, to the great consternation of the Green movement. The plenary debate of 7 February reflected the electoral and national positions (EUROPE 13345/1).
The regulation on set-aside derogations entered into force on 14 February (with retroactive application from 1 January). Two days later, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU sent the member states a questionnaire to prepare for the ‘Agriculture’ Council of 26 February: what short-term actions are needed to reduce the administrative burden? Over and above that, what simplifications and additional flexibility are required for the CAP (see EUROPE 13352/10)? On the 20th, a raft of ideas was published, issuing from the special agriculture committee and the committee on agriculture of the EP (see EUROPE 13354/4), followed the next day by more than 500 ideas from the member states, in response to the call put out by the Belgian Presidency (see EUROPE 13355/10.
Finally, the Commission adopted its document, containing proposals to simplify the conditionality requirements in the framework of the Good Agricultural Environmental Conditions (GAEC) and the methodology of the controls. The concept of ‘force majeure’ and ‘exceptional circumstances” would be clarified in the interests of farmers. In the medium term, amendments to the base act of the CAP would make it possible to support small farms (see EUROPE 13356/3). All of this did very little to reassure the principal organisations representing European agriculture (COPA and COGECA) which, in an open letter to the Commission, criticised it for its lack of financial accompaniment to repair the damage incurred by the collapse in prices and also the avalanche of standards and directives imposed upon farmers (see EUROPE 13357/18). The die was cast, two days ahead of the ministerial meeting, while preparations for fresh protests were underway.
On Monday 26 February, Brussels was once again the scene for the arrival of hundreds of tractors and farmers, who were manifestly even angrier than they had been the first time round. The Commission’s proposals went down well with the ministers, even though they called for greater ambition. A consensus was forming on the need to amend the CAP legislation (see EUROPE 13358/1). It would be untrue to say that the farmers were mollified by the promised simplifications. In particular, the question of fair sales prices remained the most important thing to them.
Very next day, the Commission opened a multilingual portal aimed at farmers, to allow them to express their views on the unfair trade practices of which they were victims (see EUROPE 13359/15). This high-quality questionnaire will be accessible until 15 March, whereupon the Commission services will analyse the results and draw their conclusions. Too little too late?
Given the urgency of the matter, the member states have taken their own separate initiatives, to bring the national players in the food chain together around the table and to work on codes of conduct for different sectors, taking account of the exceptional circumstances. The notion of a floor price was at the forefront of the public debate, with those in favour and those against, farmers included. The states can move more quickly than the cumbersome European machine, but they are members of it and obliged to observe its competition rules.
Meanwhile, the trade policy was doing its own thing, like a free agent. Having been approved by the EP and the Council of the EU, the deal with New Zealand will enter into force this year. The update of the association agreement and interim trade deal with Chile got the EP’s blessing on 29 February (see EUROPE 13361/11). On the same day, MEPs ratified the economic partnership agreement with Kenya (see EUROPE 13361/12). A trade and investment protection agreement is being negotiated with India (see EUROPE 13362/18) and the status of the Mercosur negotiation was reported earlier in this article. However, all of these trade agreements have a commercial plank and this sector gets very little room in the European election manifestoes; the average citizen knows little about it and agriculture professionals do not feel that they can influence it.
Incidentally, the handful of EU acts in favour of farmers in distress have so far been at the expense of the ‘European Green Deal’. If the pause button needs to be hit anywhere, it is not in this area, but in the negotiation of the trade deals, which are their nemesis. This is likely the price of a return to calm.
Renaud Denuit