EU agriculture ministers held a lively first debate in Luxembourg on Monday 26 October on the compromise text presented by the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU concerning support under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2028-2034.
The ministers were due to reach a ‘partial general approach’ on the file by late evening, excluding the section on ‘capping and degressivity of aid’ (see EUROPE 13965/12). However, given the differences expressed during the afternoon, discussions were still under way when we went to press on Monday evening.
Budget. Slovak Agriculture Minister Richard Takáč reiterated the demands set out in joint statements by the Visegrád countries and several other states: a better-funded and more predictable CAP, administrative simplification and a faster European response to agricultural crises (see EUROPE 13956/11).
Slovakia reiterated its reservations about capping aid. It wants capping to remain voluntary and flexible, take account of wage costs and apply to each farm rather than to all farms controlled by the same person or entity.
German Minister Alois Rainer called for greater flexibility on degressivity and capping and rejected the idea of a ceiling set in absolute terms. Germany wants differentiated area-based support to continue favouring the first hectares. Capping and degressivity are among the issues being negotiated in the context of the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2024.
Processing aid. During the debate on the post-2027 CAP text, Poland warned against applying the European ‘do no significant harm’ principle (‘DNSH’) to the environment, arguing that it could restrict the use of fossil-fuel-powered agricultural equipment, increase costs and undermine competitiveness and food security. It also supported a French proposal to simplify checks on whether land is available to the farmer. The Polish minister said he understood the position of Member States opposed to funding agri-food processing companies from the CAP budget.
Portugal, Greece, Croatia and Hungary opposed using funds intended for income support to finance investment in the agri-food industry. France also called for income support to remain targeted at farmers.
Simplification and flexibility. Several delegations, including those of France, Germany, Hungary and Croatia, challenged the new land-control obligations, which they considered too burdensome. France called for a presumption that land is made available to the farmer by its owner. Finland and Sweden called for more proportionate checks and penalties.
Environment and working conditions. Italy, Spain and Denmark called for social conditionality to be maintained. According to the Italian delegation, compliance with labour law must remain a condition for receiving CAP aid.
Italian Minister Francesco Lollobrigida also called for the option of allocating 3% of direct payments to a national mutual fund to compensate farmers following disasters such as droughts, floods or frost to be retained. Italy called for sufficient funding for the Union’s safety net, which can be mobilised in the event of a trade or climate crisis.
Germany advocated common safeguards, particularly on crop rotation, crop checks and the protection of permanent grassland.
At the end of the first round of discussions on the Irish EU Council Presidency’s text, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, Germany, Croatia, Belgium and Sweden said they were ready to support the compromise, despite reservations. France said it could not accept the text as it stood. Spain and Greece also considered that issues remained to be resolved, as did Italy, Poland, Romania and Austria.
Commissioner for Agriculture Christophe Hansen said a position from the Council of the EU was needed to launch negotiations with the European Parliament and enable national administrations to prepare for the future CAP. He called on Member States to retain mandatory risk-management and knowledge-sharing tools, as well as social conditionality. He also regretted the easing of certain environmental requirements and called for aid to be better targeted at active farmers, with mandatory capping and degressivity across the EU. At the same time, he defended support for young farmers, investment in water and irrigation, and the simplification measures set out in the text. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)