As the European Parliament holds a debate on Thursday 13 March on the European Commission’s vision for agriculture (see EUROPE 13584/12), Herbert Dorfmann MEP (EPP, Italian), coordinator for his group on the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, answered our questions on the major issues of the day, including the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). He is opposed to the idea of replacing the agricultural budget after 2027 with a single national fund (interview by Lionel Changeur).
Agence Europe – Are you satisfied with the European Commission’s vision for agriculture?
Herbert Dorfmann – The world has changed in recent years. I believe it is the right approach to say that Europe needs to be both productive and sustainable. However, focusing solely on sustainability is not working – it has even been a problem in recent years.
Do you think the European Green Deal is dead?
No, I support the Green Deal. When you look at climate change, it is sadly hard to deny its existence. I am also convinced that agriculture is the economic sector that is most affected by climate change. We must recognise that agriculture needs to be both sustainable and productive. This means investing in research and development, as well as supporting young farmers.
Would you recommend modifying the direct payments system?
I believe we need a more innovative payment system that is both sustainable and truly helps young farmers to enter the sector. The current system is too passive. It rewards land ownership with direct payments but does not properly assess what is actually taking place with regard to that land. Is there any innovation going on? Is it actively being farmed? Is it purely an investment, or is it genuinely being used for family farming? Unfortunately, there are too many cases of pure investment. We need to do a better job of identifying those who really need and deserve financial support.
Are you concerned about the European Commission’s silence on the CAP budget for 2028–2034?
I think Commissioner Hansen is right not to make false promises. The budget is largely in the hands of the Heads of State and Government within the EU Council. We need both a solid proposal and an agreement on it. What matters most is ensuring an independent agricultural budget. That is why I strongly oppose the idea of replacing it with a single national fund. We need a common agricultural fund to finance the common agricultural policy.
So what about the idea of separating the two CAP pillars?
The two pillars are highly interdependent. The second pillar (rural development) is not just about traditional rural development; it also includes direct payments to farmers, in particular support for disadvantaged areas and organic farms. These payments go directly to farmers. It is not possible to separate the two pillars into entirely different decision-making processes.
Would you recommend increasing the crisis reserve?
I’m not a big fan of the agricultural reserve in its current form. We need to explore ways to strengthen risk management measures. Crisis reserve funds have been distributed equally among Member States. In this case, Member States could receive funds and create their own risk management systems at a national level. We could also consider establishing a new fund based on a real insurance system.
What is your opinion on the Nutri-Score system at European level?
I believe that labels should inform consumers, not educate them. Consumer education should be done through other means. Let’s just say that the Nutri-Score is an imprecise system.
Do you think the Mercosur agreement sends the wrong message to European farmers?
No. Of course, there are certain European agricultural sectors where we need to be cautious and implement measures to ensure they do not suffer as a result of this agreement, such as beef, sugar, and bioethanol. However, many other products could benefit, such as cheese, wine, and olive oil. We need to find the right balance.
Personally, I don’t see this agreement as an agricultural agreement, but as a free trade agreement with Mercosur. At a time when the European Union is losing allies at an alarming rate, now is perhaps not the time to lose South America as a trading partner as well.
Regarding beef, the agreement provides for 99,000 tonnes of Mercosur beef per year. That equates to just 250 grams per European citizen annually. Moreover, if you compare beef prices in Brazil and the EU today, the gap is not as wide as one might think.
Would you recommend maintaining safeguards on agricultural imports from Ukraine?
I fully understand the need to be generous towards Ukraine. At the same time, we must protect our farmers. Two years ago, we introduced safeguard measures that have worked well. I think we should continue this approach, allowing access to the European market as long as it doesn’t disrupt our own markets.
What do you think of the European Commission’s proposal on tariffs for Russian and Belarusian fertilisers?
We are aware that a significant share of our fertilizers comes from Russia and Belarus. If we close this market, there will be consequences since fertiliser prices will rise for European farmers. That’s why we need to proceed with caution.