On Monday 17 November, the European agriculture ministers said that the European Commission’s recent concessions on the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were still largely insufficient.
With regard to the legislative proposals for the CAP 2028-2034 , a majority of ministers criticised the provisions currently on the table, which include a reduction in support for large farms and a €100,000 capping on aid, in order to ensure a fairer distribution of funds.
Jacob Jensen, the Danish Minister for Agriculture, told a press conference that some Member States welcomed the Commission’s focus on small farms, while others stressed the importance of large farms for food security. “I believe the debate showed that we need a certain amount of flexibility to find a solution that works in all Member States across Europe”, he summarised.
The Danish Presidency of the EU Council had scheduled a thematic debate on direct payments. However, as at the previous EU Council (see EUROPE 13739/1), many ministers suggested that they did not wish to go into the details of the proposals until they were more certain about the architecture of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
Ministers refuse to allow the CAP to be integrated into future ‘National and Regional Partnership Plans’. The Commission’s recent proposals have not dispelled their concerns and have left delegations particularly circumspect (see EUROPE 13749/2).
Supported in particular by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia, Italy has drafted a note criticising the draft National and Regional Partnership Plans (https://aeur.eu/f/jf9 ) and has judged the recent concessions to be insufficient, particularly with regard to the new rural objective (10% of the funds in the single plan).
The Italian minister, Francesco Lollobrigida, also condemned the planned reduction in funding for the CAP 2028-2034. Spain and France have expressed the same concern, rejecting a reduced budget.
The European Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, pointed out that many ministers “are calling for Member States to be allowed a degree of flexibility to take account of the specific features of their structures, but also the particularities of the various regions”. For him, this represents “a kind of contradiction with the demand not to renationalise the CAP”. He said it was necessary to find the right balance to offer flexibility without losing the essence of the CAP.
Capping. The ministers from Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Austria (hostile to a compulsory system), Estonia (which wants an optional system) and Sweden criticised the proposals on the capping and degressivity of aid. Poland is not opposed to the principle of capping, but is calling for the threshold to be raised.
France questioned the concept of degressive income support and better targeting of support. In addition, it welcomed the maintenance of coupled support.
The Danish minister, Mr Jensen, stressed the need to “take into consideration the various size and structure in the agricultural sector from one Member State to another”.
“I would like to make it clear that if a cap or degressivity is applied, the money does not go back into a common pot: it remains in the Member State”, Christophe Hansen tried to reassure. It is up to the Member State to use these funds, for example for coupled support or for areas subject to natural constraints, or to improve investment aid, he explained. Speaking to the press, Mr Hansen added that “the capping will only affect 4% of beneficiaries of the Common Agricultural Policy. 96% will not be affected”.
Rural objective. Some ministers said that the 10% rural target was a step in the right direction, while others felt that it did not reflect the volumes of the current second pillar. Italy, Austria, Portugal and Spain considered that the 10% rate was insufficient. “I think it is very beneficial for rural development and investment in rural areas”, defended Mr Hansen.
Strategic reserves. Spain welcomed the Commission’s proposals to build up strategic stocks of agricultural products. Portugal said that they could play a role, but that distortions of competition should be avoided. Germany, for its part, stressed that the Member States should be given room for manoeuvre in this area. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)