In preparation for the Agriculture Council on 27 January, experts from the EU Member States discussed further simplification measures for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on Monday 20 January.
The need to simplify the performance clearance procedure was spoken of by delegations to the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA), in particular by revising (or eliminating) the approach based on unit amounts (i.e. the difference between planned and actual unit amounts).
On the subject of the CAP’s green architecture, the Member States reiterated the need to strike a balance between environmental requirements and food security, and therefore to allow greater flexibility in the implementation of the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC). Some Member States felt that there was too much overlap between the GAECs and other European Green Deal measures.
The European Commission reportedly pointed out that, in extreme cases, such as flooding or drought, Member States can benefit from a temporary derogation and only have to inform the Commission, which is already a very flexible approach.
Several countries advocated a faster and more flexible procedure for amending the strategic plans implementing the CAP.
Certain Member States felt that a de minimis threshold of 2% for the presentation of justifications for differences between the realised unit amounts and planned unit amounts was insufficient.
Some Member States called for a review of the CAP’s basic legislation during the current programming period, while others suggested waiting for discussions on the post-2027 CAP (the Commission also reportedly warned against a hasty reopening of the basic CAP legislation).
Concerns about trade. With regard to the free trade agreements currently being negotiated (India, Thailand, Indonesia) and those recently concluded (Mercosur, Mexico), the SCA delegations raised the following issues: - the possibility of further studies by the Commission, for example on the impact of the agreements on the EU market; - non-tariff barriers to trade, in particular the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) chapters of free trade agreements and WTO dispute settlement mechanisms.
On the subject of the rumoured existence of a compensation fund for farmers under the EU-Mercosur agreement, the Commission reportedly refuted this idea. However, what will be discussed during the negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is the creation of an additional reserve of at least €1 billion if farmers are penalised by free trade agreements (see EUROPE 13559/4). The Commission is said to have stressed that it was unlikely that the EU-Mercosur agreement would have a negative impact, thanks to the safeguard measures provided for in the agreement. Some delegations (including Spain and Sweden) are said to have welcomed the EU-Mercosur agreement, in contrast to others (France and the Netherlands, among others). (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)