Generally speaking, farming organisations and MEPs have welcomed certain aspects of the European Commission’s ‘vision’ for agriculture and food, notably the reciprocity of production standards and the attention paid to the livestock sector. The issues mostly concern the lack of any indication of the volume of appropriations for the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2027.
NGOs are far more critical of the document adopted on Wednesday 19 February (see EUROPE 13583/5).
A missing budget. According to Céline Imart MEP (EPP, French), the omission of aspects of the CAP budget “is far from insignificant”. In her view, it augurs “a dilution of this policy into a single large plan specific to each European country, when what is needed, on the contrary, is to safeguard a strong, common budget adapted to the agricultural challenges”. Benoît Cassart (Renew Europe, Belgian) felt that if “we don’t want this vision to be just words, we need an ambitious budget for the CAP”.
The EU’s agricultural organisations and cooperatives (Copa-Cogeca) are also warning against the dangers of merging funds (agricultural and cohesion policy) and establishing single national budget plans. The ‘vision’ makes no mention of the CAP budget, and references to the second pillar (rural development) and its funding are simply absent from the final version of the communication. “Ambitions and proposals will be of little use without a solid CAP”, according to Copa-Cogeca.
The Farm Europe think tank believes that “a clear signal regarding the CAP budget is missing”. According to the think tank, strengthening the strategic autonomy of EU agriculture requires “putting an end to decades of CAP budget reductions. A commitment to compensating for the impact of inflation, which, between 2021 and 2027, has resulted in a loss of more than €85 billion, is essential”.
Inconsistencies. Some MEPs and trade organisations believe that the desire to sign the EU-Mercosur agreement is an inconsistency in this ‘vision’. The Commission “recognises that there is a lack of reciprocity and unfair competition, and that it is necessary to align the production standards applied to imported products. So why does it want to sign an agreement with the Mercosur countries, which have clearly stated that they are opposed to any mirror clause?”, points out Benoît Cassart. He welcomes the fact that the ‘vision’ confirms the intention to adopt a strategy for livestock farming that respects diversity. However, it will be essential, in his view, not to favour solutions that will result in “reducing livestock numbers in order to reduce CO2 emissions, as this would only increase imports by relocating our CO2 production rather than actually reducing it”. The European Compound Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC) particularly welcomed the emphasis placed on livestock farming to promote the long-term future of the sector.
Reciprocity of standards. Most farming organisations welcomed the Commission’s desire to achieve reciprocity in production standards for imported agricultural products. Euroseeds welcomes the focus on plant breeding innovations, on ensuring an attractive agricultural sector and boosting competitiveness by guaranteeing a level playing field in world trade and bringing production standards for imported products into line with EU regulations.
The European Liaison Committee for Agricultural and Agri-Food Trade (CELCAA), on the other hand, is concerned about the references to aligning production standards for imported products. “The different countries and regions of the world have their own advantages, challenges and production conditions”, the organisation says.
The organisations also welcome the desire to develop a self-sufficient and sustainable protein supply system within the EU.
A lack of ambition. The European Coordination Via Campesina welcomes the desire to improve the prices paid to farmers and to distribute subsidies more fairly, but is critical of the “nature credit mechanisms” and the desire to develop new genomic techniques (NGTs).
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), for its part, regrets the absence of bold measures agreed unanimously during the strategic dialogue on agriculture. The EEB is particularly concerned about the lack of environmental measures and objectives. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)