The debate organised on Thursday 9 April in the form of a workshop within the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee on the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) revealed strong reservations among MEPs about the model proposed by the European Commission (see EUROPE 13812/7).
MEPs were particularly critical of the fact that the CAP budget and its two traditional pillars (direct payments and rural development) will no longer be ring-fenced under the next financial framework 2028-2034, and that Member States will be forced to manage cumbersome and confusing national plans (national and regional partnership plans). According to several speakers, this approach could accentuate the renationalisation of the CAP.
Another point of tension concerns the level playing field between farmers. MEPs fear that disparities between Member States will increase, further weakening the most vulnerable farms.
The role of the European Parliament in monitoring the CAP is also being questioned. A number of MEPs have criticised the weakening of democratic control, with governance perceived as opaque and not very inclusive.
Furthermore, the criteria for distributing funds, the definition of rural areas and the environmental objectives remain unclear, fuelling concerns about the future CAP’s ability to respond to climate and social challenges.
The prevailing feeling among MEPs is that the model is still incomplete and potentially destabilising for the agricultural sector.
Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italian) questioned the promise of simplification and predicted a heavier planning burden for Member States. He also condemned the vagueness surrounding the definition of rural areas.
Cristina Maestre (S&D, Spanish) questioned whether the proposed model was really capable of protecting the agricultural sector.
Tomáš Kubín (PfE, Czech) said he feared a form of renationalisation of the CAP in the future. “The question is whether there will still be a genuine common agricultural policy. I don’t think so. We’re going to have to fight for funding”, he said.
Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR, Dutch), for his part, suggested that it might be wiser to decouple the CAP from the partnership plans.
Charles Goerens (Renew Europe, Belgian) called for an end to the vagueness and hasty judgements surrounding CAP reform. In his view, the debate must now focus on a few key issues. Is the CAP heading for renationalisation? Will it be simpler or more bureaucratic? Will it remain resilient and applicable, particularly in the face of Ukraine’s possible accession and future trade agreements?
Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA, Luxembourgish) expressed strong reservations about the coherence and readability of the proposed model. The MEP was also concerned about the voluntary nature of climate and environmental actions. “How can we be competitive if our soil and water are not protected? With droughts and floods, we simply won’t be competitive”, she stressed. Tilly Metz also criticised the lack of indicators to measure the impact of the proposed measures, making it difficult to verify the coherence of the scheme. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)