The Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU confirmed, on Monday 28 September in Brussels, its objective of bringing European agriculture ministers to an agreement by the end of October on a partial general approach concerning the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), before negotiations continue on the EU’s 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
During the ‘Agriculture’ Council debate on the compromise texts concerning the future CAP, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, defended a degree of flexibility, while warning against a CAP in which almost all interventions (measures) would become optional. In his view, this would risk turning the CAP into a “pick and choose” system and weakening the level playing field within the Single Market. He therefore defended maintaining common safeguards, particularly as regards coupled support.
Several ministers called for the CAP budget to be sufficiently ambitious. The French minister, Annie Genevard, argued for maintaining a common CAP with an overall budget that is “preserved and sufficient”.
“At this stage, it still does not add up”, she said. She called as well for certain European cofinancing rates to be increased. “Without that, differences between Member States will widen on essential issues, particularly the climate and environmental transition of farms and sectoral interventions”, she said.
Hungary also called for appropriations devoted to the CAP to be maintained at least at their current level. Slovakia, for its part, refused to see increased defence spending in the EU come “at the expense of agriculture”.
Speaking to the press, the German minister, Alois Rainer, defended a strong, sufficiently funded CAP, in line with the German coalition agreement. He called as well for “an autonomous CAP within the European legal framework”, with a two-pillar structure maintained.
Degressivity and capping of aid. These issues, which will also be discussed at EU leaders’ level as part of the expected compromise on the 2028-2034 MFF, are a point of divergence between the Member States. Several ministers asked for these mechanisms to be optional, or for states to have broad room for manoeuvre in applying them.
Alois Rainer rejected mandatory capping in its current form. Hungary considered that capping and degressivity should be voluntary, with thresholds defined at national level. Slovakia also rejected a mandatory uniform model and in particular requested the possibility of deducting labour costs.
For the Italian minister, Francesco Lollobrigida, these measures affect the viability of farms, especially those providing the most jobs. “We therefore consider it necessary to continue the technical and political discussions, in particular in order to provide for their optional application and to reintroduce the possibility of deducting agricultural labour costs”, he said.
Belgium, by contrast, supported the mandatory nature of degressivity and capping, while calling for strong national or regional flexibility in their application. It wanted as well additional support for young farmers and for organic farming to be excluded from the calculation.
Sweden also said it preferred a voluntary system, while declaring itself ready to consider obligations if the thresholds and rates were adjusted.
Social conditionality. Francesco Lollobrigida claimed that removing the rules making payment of Common Agricultural Policy aid conditional on compliance with standards on agricultural labour “constitutes a step backwards compared with the current programming period. We therefore consider it necessary to reintroduce them”. Other delegations, by contrast, welcomed the removal of these provisions, such as Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg.
Targeting of aid. Christophe Hansen strongly insisted on the targeting of aid: in his view, the CAP should not provide support to owners who do not need it or who are not genuinely farmers. He called for an ambitious definition of the ‘active farmer’, associated with degressivity and capping.
The issue is, however, dividing the Member States. Belgium proposed an EU-level harmonised definition of ‘active farmer’, based on a minimum level of agricultural activity, but complemented by national or regional criteria. It also wants to be able to take family labour on farms into account.
France called as well for a European framework limiting certain interventions to ‘active farmers’, while leaving it to the Member States to define that status precisely at national level.
Germany and Sweden, for their part, want greater flexibility on this definition, or even for it to be optional, notably because of the administrative difficulties linked to its implementation.
Moreover, Spain advocated a European reinsurance system for national risk management systems, a proposal also supported by Portugal.
A group of countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) explicitly called for the possibility of maintaining Transitional National Aid post-2027 to be written into the future CAP regulation.
Timetable. Several delegations are concerned about the implementation timetable and are advocating transitional measures, and they requested guarantees to avoid an interruption of payments in 2028.
In conclusion, the Irish Minister for Agriculture, Martin Heydon, stressed that the discussions had made it possible to identify “useful political guidance” on the questions still outstanding and confirmed the Presidency’s determination to continue work “intensively” in the coming weeks, with a view to an agreement in October.
However, he called on the Member States to be realistic, stating that it would not be possible to meet all national requests and that it was necessary to preserve “a common framework with the flexibility” needed to implement the future CAP in each Member State.
According to Martin Heydon, achieving a partial general approach in October would constitute a “major step” in defining the future CAP and would in particular make it possible to give European farmers the predictability and stability they need to plan their activities. Work will continue in particular within the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) during October. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)