News

The European Court of Justice stated on 25/07/2018 that new breeding techniques in the European Union should be assessed and approved according to the same rules as GMOs since April 2021. Many representatives of farmers or politicians but with the conclusions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) disagreed; during the conference on 19/11/2019 they expressed their concerns, in particular, about the significant negative impacts that would be a threat to the whole sector if the ECJ conclusions were implemented. Representatives of the European Commission stated during the conference that the conclusions of the ECJ must be implemented, but the European Commission should carry out a study to assess the impact of the implementation of this decision, the study should be available at the end of April 2021.
More information is available here.

Glyphosate is licensed for use in the European Union until mid-December 2022, and a multiannual evaluation process on the health and environmental impact of this substance will be launched next month. A number of Member States, including France, Germany or Austria, have already indicated their interest in banning the use of the active substance before the expiry of the pan-European license, a common reason being the fear of a possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Bjorn Hansen said ECHA as such does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogenic substance, but glyphosate is, according to ECHA, dangerous for its environmental impact, especially for watercourses, meadows and biodiversity. According to Hansen, the use of glyphosate leads to the death of a number of plants that were not the primary target for drug application, resulting in monocultures without wild plants.

The Hungarian Minister of Agriculture, István Nagy, called on the Council of Ministers on 18/11/2019 for urgent assistance to the beekeeping sector due to a decrease in the current profitability of the HU sector by an average of 50% over the last 5 years. HU suggested increasing flexibility for Member States to transfer funds between pillars, e.g. from EAGF sector programs (EAGF) or EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) and granting aid for the purchase of hives, combs and sugar under quality improvement measures in the case of CAP strategic plans. The draft measures were supported by FR, CZ and CY. However, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development Phil Hogan stressed that the number of hives in the EU was the highest in 2018, and although there was a small decrease (-0.2%) in HU between 2017 and 2018, the long-term trend is increasing. Hogan also said that the Commission proposed to increase the budget for the sector from 40 million to 60 million euros, pending the approval of the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework.
More information is available here.

The Ministers of Agriculture of the EU Member States will meet on 18/11/2019 at the Council of Ministers in Brussels. Ministers will discuss in particular the state of play of the CAP reform after 2020. Under this point, they will address the environmental and climate aspects of the reform and the regulation on transitional CAP provisions. On other issues, ministers will exchange views on the current situation in the beekeeping sector, the difficulties in importing rice from Myanmar and the excessive import of maize from Ukraine. Last but not least, ministers will listen to the Commission's information on the EU-China trade agreement.

Under its Presidency, Finland submitted a new proposal last week on the allocation of CAP funds to climate and environmental protection measures. In its proposals, the European Commission seeks to allocate 30% of the envelope for the second pillar - rural development programs - to protect the environment and climate, and, according to the Commission, 40% of funding should be earmarked for environmental and climate protection, according to the Commission. However, the Finnish Presidency proposes in its latest document not to allocate environmental and climate protection measures within the individual pillars, but only collectively from the whole envelope of the Member State for the CAP - it should be a single common percentage of the total CAP budget for each EU Member State. Finland does not propose a specific share of the envelope to be allocated to these measures; the share decision should be taken after the approval of the Multiannual Financial Framework (EU budget) for the period after 2020. However, the European Commission disagrees with the Finnish Presidency's approach the proposal could jeopardize efforts to strengthen the ambitions of the environment and climate protection. In its proposals, the European Commission also includes mandatory measures, including agroforestry, organic farming or animal welfare, in environmental and climate measures. On the contrary, the Finnish Presidency states in the document that a single common percentage should include eco-schemes, investment, consultancy and knowledge exchange on environmental and climate areas. Interventions proposed by Finland as beneficial for the environment and climate should also include compensation for areas with natural constraints (ANC), which has been criticized by environmental NGOs, including BirdLife Europe. According to the European Commission, the Finnish approach will make it impossible to predict the results of the measures taken in advance; removing the requirement to include certain measures could reduce environmental ambitions. According to the Finnish Presidency, on the other hand, removing the obligation requirement will increase Member States' flexibility, but the resulting allocation of climate and environmental measures from the CAP envelope should be binding on Member States. As both pillars of the CAP should fall under one national Strategic Plan, Finland has no reason to set environmental and climate targets for the pillars separately. According to Finland, the proposal is still in the process of being negotiated; the idea has so far been supported by about 10 EU Member States. The current position of the EP Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development supports the allocation of 30% of the envelope for rural development and 20% of the envelope for direct payments for environmental and climate protection, EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposes 30% of the envelope for rural development as well as 30% of the envelope for direct payments.