News

The European Parliament approved on 28/11/2019 a non-legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the allocation to the United States of a tariff quota of non-hormone-treated beef and on higher tariffs that the United States applies to certain European Union products. In September 2018, the European Commission proposed opening negotiations on new quotas for imports of American beef into the EU. The Commission proposal to reserve an exclusive US quota of 35,000 tonnes of non-hormone-treated beef from a total quota of 45,000 tonnes in the past has been rejected by Australia and Uruguay, which have used the largest share of the total quota of 45,000 tonnes (Australia to 17,000 tonnes per year). However, the European Parliament endorsed the Commission proposal in its Resolution of 28/11/2019, noting that the agreement does not affect the current scope of access to the EU beef market and that the total quota for access to the EU market for non-hormone-treated beef must not be increased.
More information is available here.

On 28/11/2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution of the European Parliament on measures to address the effects of World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions in the Airbus dispute on European agriculture. The United States decided to impose a duty on European agricultural production in October 2019, the intention was also supported by the WTO. According to the US, the introduction of customs duties is a response to the illegal subsidization of the European aircraft manufacturer Airbus. Customs duties should be valid from 18/10/2019 and should amount to 10% for Airbus and 25% for other production - a total of US $ 7.5 billion. Agricultural products should be newly burdened with cheeses, dairy products, Irish whiskey, spirits, French wines, sweeteners, coffee, biscuits, olives and pork. In its Resolution of 28/11/2019, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to investigate the impact of these measures on the affected sectors and the internal market and, if justified, to swiftly release support for the worst affected sectors in line with WTO rules and within budget limits.
More information is available here.

Environmental NGOs ClientEarth, Fern and Conservation International have criticized a study by the independent London School of Economics (LSE Consulting) on assessing the impact of the EU trade agreement with Mercosur on sustainability, published by the European Commission. The study analyses the impact assessment of the EU - Mercosur trade agreement on the economy, society, human rights and the environment. The report concludes that the agreement will have a minor impact on carbon dioxide emissions and, according to environmental organizations, does not offer a sufficient environmental impact assessment, with most of the results to be published only in the final report to be published in the first half of 2020 The report should focus primarily on the impacts of deforestation, pesticide use, fisheries and water resources. In addition to the inadequate environmental impact assessment of the agreement, environmental organizations also criticize that the study was submitted too long after the draft trade agreement was submitted (draft submitted in June 2019, study in October 2019). John Clarke, Director of International Affairs of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, said the study would have a negligible effect on deforestation due to the low volume of 99,000 tonnes of beef quota for Mercosur.
More information is available here and here.

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.