At their informal meeting in Copenhagen on Tuesday 9 September, the EU’s agriculture ministers presented a number of options for strengthening food security, making the legislative framework more competitive, and offering new incentives and innovative technologies to “ensure the green transition while increasing food production”, Danish minister Jacob Jensen told a press conference.
Several delegations expressed their concerns about the planned reduction in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget for the period 2028-2034. In particular, Belgium stated that the proposal “does not provide sufficient means to encourage green practices in tomorrow’s agriculture” (see EUROPE 13704/2). An in-depth debate on CAP reform is scheduled for the next EU ‘Agriculture’ Council on 22 September.
For Austrian Minister Norbert Totschnig, the current proposals represent “a major systemic break”. The disappearance of the two-pillar structure would “massively” weaken the CAP, and the absence of dedicated funding for rural development would see the Union lose “a central instrument”, he warned.
“Of course, you also need adequate financial resources. Some of these points were raised at our meeting”, admitted Mr Jensen.
Among the issues raised by the ministers were: - the importance of stability, predictability and simplification; - the need for an incentive-based approach and a focus on generational renewal; - the importance of adequate investment and funding to support the green transition.
Some ministers mentioned new genomic techniques as a useful tool for speeding up the green transition. Several expressed concerns about the proposals for the post-2027 CAP (e.g. its architecture and budget, and the proposed rules on degressivity and capping).
The Commission refuted any plans to make cuts. The Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, said that he did not know exactly where the cuts would be made, “because we will only be presenting the national envelopes next week”.
He insisted on the fact that the Commission had secured €300 billion for farmers’ direct income: “It’s much more than the direct income from the current first pillar, because we’ve also made sure that, for example, investment and environmental measures are covered”.
Around €500 billion remain in national and regional plans.
The 20% that is not covered by the €300 billion could easily be offset if just €100 billion of the €500 billion were allocated to agricultural measures, said Mr Hansen: “That’s already more than we have at the moment”. Member States have the option of topping up payments over and above the 80% set aside. “I wouldn’t say that there is less money available. There are more responsibilities for Member States”, he added.
Mr Hansen confirmed that he was preparing the EU’s strategy for generational renewal: “We need to better target funds where they are most needed: young and new farmers, family farms and farms in regions with natural constraints”, he added.
On the subject of capping aid, Mr Hansen pointed out that the money would remain in the Member State and could then be redistributed in a more targeted way.
Green transition. Belgium warned against certain possible side-effects of new mechanisms such as ‘carbon farming’ or the future ‘nature credit’: land speculation and land grabbing, particularly by non-agricultural companies seeking to offset their carbon footprint. Finland said that the EU Deforestation Regulation and its implementation should be further simplified as part of the forthcoming simplification initiatives. Poland suggested reducing the requirements linked to the use of renewable energy sources (biomass of agricultural origin).
To reduce the impact of pesticides on soils, optimise the use of water for irrigation and improve plant varieties, the Commission has proposed in the 2028-2034 MFF “to increase this envelope from €9 billion to €40 billion. This budget will be mobilised via the European Competitiveness Fund, and therefore outside the €300 billion reserved for agriculture”, added Mr Hansen.
Trade. Several ministers stressed the need to guarantee a level playing field between European products and imported products, in particular through reciprocal measures in trade agreements, in compliance with WTO rules.
For sensitive agricultural products, Belgium proposed that the EU should define ceilings for cumulative agricultural quotas granted to third countries, expressed as a percentage of European agricultural production.
Asked about the EU/Mercosur agreement (see EUROPE 13701/1), Mr Hansen pointed out that: “We currently have a very unstable geopolitical environment, with China and the United States exerting pressure. I think it’s important that we have stable relations based on common rules”.
He said that he would be travelling to Brazil in October with a delegation from the EU’s agri-food sector, because of the “enormous interest shown by our agricultural and agri-food sector”. Mr Hansen acknowledged the need to address the concerns of certain sectors, “through the safeguard mechanism and better controls on imported products”.
With regard to the next trip to India, scheduled for 11 and 12 September, Mr Hansen said: “Of course, we have attack and defensive areas. We’ll be discussing where we can make progress. That’s why I'm accompanying Maroš Šefčovič on this delegation, to see where the landing points might be. We’re still in the early stages of the process, but in an unstable geopolitical landscape it's important to find new opportunities for our sectors”.
With regard to animal welfare, the Danish Presidency of the EU Council said it hopes to make progress on animal transport and the protection of dogs and cats. “I’m not saying that we’ll be able to finalise all these dossiers, but we’ll do our best to conclude at least some of them. So it’s not a forgotten subject”, added Mr Jensen. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)