News

On 18/11/2019 during the Council of Ministers, the Ministers of Agriculture discussed the proposal of the Finnish Presidency (here) on the allocation of CAP funds for measures to protect the environment and the climate. According to the Finnish proposal, 'there could be a single percentage or a fixed amount of funding covering both pillars and the Member State concerned could choose, under the first or second pillar or both, one or more interventions to contribute to that percentage or amount. Member States could choose the interventions that are most appropriate for them, taking into account their local conditions, without being forced to withdraw them from a specific pillar.

Finland also states that instead of allocating 30% of the second pillar to objectives in the environment and climate (as proposed by the Commission), Member States would allocate a proportion of their total CAP resources (first and second pillar) to these objectives. According to FI, the uniform target should be set at a later date, after the Member States have reached agreement on the EU budget for the period 2021-2027, the allocation should be binding on Member States. Agriculture ministers generally supported the idea, which was welcomed by Finnish Minister of Agriculture Jari Leppä (the idea was specifically supported by DK, BE, SE, PT, ES, AT, CZ, CY, LT, FR, SK, MT, FR and NL). According to the Danish Minister of Agriculture, the percentage of the envelope should be as high as possible; The Czech Republic supported a percentage of 30–40% and at the same time the exclusion of eco-schemes from possible ceilings (supported by SK). On the contrary, Germany favoured the proposal of the European Commission, i.e. the allocation within the individual pillars, supported by IT, LV, EE. According to the representatives of Romania, specific objectives for each of the pillars should be introduced within the CAP, and not only under the second pillar but also in the case of direct payments. Ministers HR, PT, AT, LT, EE, BG, CY and IE also rejected the cuts in the CAP budget. Croatia considers it essential to ensure an adequate (unabated) budget for the CAP after 2020, given the need to compensate farmers for strengthening environmental and climate action. Leppä expressed his intention to report on progress in the negotiations on the CAP during the next Ministerial Council (16/12/2019).

The current Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Phil Hogan, was not in favour of the Presidency's FI proposal on the allocation of funds for environmental and climate measures, stressing that strengthening environmental and climate ambitions was a priority, while the FI proposal could lead to the opposite. According to Hogan, climate and environmental policy must be as detailed as possible; otherwise there will be risks of weakening EU action aimed at protecting the environment and climate.

Furthermore, the Ministers of Agriculture discussed the Commission's proposal for the transitional rules, while representatives of BG, CY, CZ, HU, PL and RO supported the maintenance of transitional national support (complementary support at national level), which they claimed had no impact on the EU common budget. National support should continue to be paid at the level of payments from 2020, thus ensuring greater stability for farmers. Furthermore, ministers generally supported a rather two-year transitional period (the Commission proposes transitional measures for one year) - the extension of the transitional period was specifically supported by representatives of DE, LU, SK, GR, PL, SI, HR and CZ.

According to Hogan, Member States at risk of running out of funds for their rural development programs can extend these programs for another year, in accordance with the principle of 'old rules, new budget'. Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan called for the adoption of rules for the transitional period until summer 2020.

PL, LT, LV, EE and HU ministers supported the inclusion of liming among eligible practices under eco-schemes (climate and environmental schemes). Ministers remain fragmented in setting cross-compliance rules (whether to apply to all farmers or to exclude small farmers from them).

The ministers' discussion also showed:
Eco-schemes should be voluntary for Member States - IT, HU;
Eco-schemes should be mandatory for Member States - PT, FR;
For eco-schemes, a minimum mandatory budget - DE - should be set in the first pillar;
Animal welfare rules should be strengthened; farmers who fulfil welfare beyond requirements should be remunerated - SE;
Support for external convergence - PT, PL, LT;
Cross-compliance should not apply to small farmers - PL, HU, and GR.

Bas Eickhout, Vice-Chairman of the EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, warned last week about the current procedure of the EP Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development regarding joint work on an opinion on the Common Agricultural Policy. According to Eickhout, the Committee on Agriculture has not yet started adequate joint discussions with the Committee on the Environment on adapting its opinion on the CAP after 2020; the Committees have shared competences on some parts of the opinion. Eickhout is therefore concerned that the Committee on Agriculture will draw up its own amendments to the opinion, which it will then only present to the Committee on the Environment. However, according to the Vice-President of the Committee, this could lead to chaos in the vote in the European Parliament plenary and to a very narrow majority. In the event that the Committee on Agriculture does not adequately reflect the opinions of the Committee on the Environment in its draft amendments, the Committee on the Environment may table its own amendments directly in Parliament's plenary, thus making the vote more complicated.

Representatives of the German Treasury in recent weeks rejected the proposed increase in membership fees to the European Union budget to 1.114% of gross national income (GNP), as proposed by the European Commission; Germany also rejects the compromise proposals Finland to increase contributions to 1.03% to 1.08%. According to representatives of the German Government, Germany has so far insisted on a maximum limit of 1% of GNP. In response, several German MEPs supported opinions of the European Parliament: Norbert Lins (EPP, Chairman of the EP Committee on Agriculture), Marlene Mortler (EPP), Lena Düpont (EPP) and Christine Schneider (EPP). They supported raising the national budget to 1.3% of GNP to ensure an adequate budget for the CAP after 2020 and compensate farmers for strengthening environmental and climate protection activities.

In its proposal for the post-2020 CAP of June 2018, the European Commission states that internal (internal; intra-Member State) convergence of direct payments must be achieved by 2026 at the latest (at least 75% of the average). With regard to convergence external (external; between Member States) The Commission proposes that all Member States with direct payments below 90% of the EU average continue the process started in 2014-2020 and close 50% of the existing gap to 90%. However, according to a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), achieving internal convergence is a greater challenge and a major problem than achieving external convergence. WWF conducted a study in Spain, where WWF reports that the average direct payments amounts to € 145, but internal disparities reach a gap of € 60 per hectare to € 1,430 per hectare, 70% of all Spanish farmers receive payments below the Spanish average. While in the case of external convergence some Member States receive 5 times higher direct payments per hectare than other Member States, in the case of internal convergence, some farmers receive between 10 and 20 times higher direct payments than other farmers from the same country. Although, according to WWF, Spain is an extreme example, there are also significant differences in the level of direct payments within Member States in Belgium, Italy or Greece.

The European Commission has committed itself to presenting the Farm to Fork strategy, which should be part of the European Green Deal, within 100 days of taking over the mandate. The mandate should be taken over on 01/12/2019. As part of the internal process, the European Commission is still working on a Farm to Fork strategy proposal, another version of the strategy has escaped in the past week, but it is still not the final version. In the latest version available, the European Commission is strengthening its emphasis on fisheries policy, deforestation and sustainable food supply chains. The revised version also reinforces the emphasis on enhancing support for plant protein production and greater inclusion of plant diet in EU nutritional habits; stresses the need to protect pollinators; and includes prevention of soil erosion. Furthermore, the European Commission states in its updated version of the strategy that the absence of clear and coherent labelling of sustainable production in the European Union leads to confusion for consumers and to their loss of confidence in EU food systems. According to the Commission, sustainable food systems should combine economic aspects (profits, employment, food supply, taxes), social aspects (added value distribution, cultural traditions, nutrition, animal welfare), and environmental aspects (carbon footprint, water consumption, soil health, animal and plant, food loss and waste, biodiversity, toxicity).

The Farm to Fork strategy will be a central theme of the European Agricultural Conference on Market Outlook in December 2019 (10-11/12/2019) with the participation of the new Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski and Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides. A workshop for Member States to discuss the Farm to Fork strategy should be held in January 2020, followed by a public consultation, to be launched in February 2020.
More information is available here, the registration is available here.