The issue of reform to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been going on for the bones of three years now but the end might be in sight.
At the end of May, a ‘trilogue’ between the Portuguese presidency of the Council of the EU (in its ‘Agriculture and Fisheries’ configuration); a delegation from the European Parliament; and the European Commission took place to try and hammer out the final sticky details of reform to the policy.
This also coincided with a formal meeting of the agriculture ministers in the Council of the EU.
Now, with those meetings failing to reach agreement, the process is set to start again this week, with a trilogue set to take place on Thursday and Friday of this week (June 24 and June 25), and a meeting of the agriculture ministers scheduled for Monday and Tuesday of next week (June 28 and June 29).
The aim is for the Portuguese presidency, the parliament negotiating delegation and the European Commission to come to an agreement this week, and for the agriculture ministers council to sign-off on an agreement the following week (the full parliament will also have to give it the green light).
The Portuguese presidency is due to come to an end on the last day of June (the presidency of the council alternates between member states every six months). Portugal’s agriculture minister, Maria do Ceu Antunes, is eager to get a deal on CAP across the line before her tenure at the head of the EU’s agriculture ministers ends.
Last month’s talks failed due to disagreement on a few key points. The agriculture ministers and the parliament have different views on these issues. The commission, while ostensibly acting as a mediator between the council and the parliament, is understood to be sympathetic to the parliament’s views.
The main issues for the next CAP
The main issues for CAP reform have been outlined before, but it’s no harm to go back over them as a reminder.
On the issue of convergence, the council began with a negotiating position of 75%, i.e. that direct payments would be brought up to 75% of a national average in each member state (internal convergence).
However, the parliament is holding out for 100% convergence. As a compromise, the council raised its offer to 85%. Current indications suggest that 85% will be the final agreement, though this is not set in stone yet.
A similar issue that is up for agreement is payment redistribution and front-loaded payments. The purpose of this is to further realign payments apart from convergence.
A set proportion of the CAP direct payment envelope will be ring-fenced and redistributed towards farmers with lower payments through the Complementary Redistributive Income Support Scheme (CRISS).
The figure for the ringfencing remains to be set, though a final figure of between 10% and 12% is likely.
Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue (along with ministers from 11 other member states) are seeking and ‘opt-out’ from mandatory implementation of redistribution.
Eco-schemes
One of the most-talked about issues for these negotiations are the new eco-schemes – agri-environmental schemes that will be mandatory for member states to roll-out, but optional for farmers to take part in.
However, farmers who do not take part in an eco-scheme risk loosing a portion of their direct payments. This is because the eco-schemes will be funded out of each member state’s Pillar I envelope.
A portion of Pillar I funds will be set-aside for this purpose. The question of how much is the problem. The council went into this with a negotiating position of 20% of Pillar I. The parliament wants 30%.
Some ministers (including Minister McConalogue) are also looking for a ‘learning period’ whereby there would be no risk of losing funds in the first couple of years of the eco-schemes, in case there is a low uptake.
A potential compromise position exists whereby the level of direct payments to be set aside for eco-schemes would be 25% with a learning period. If agreement comes over the next two weeks, this arrangement will be confirmed.
Remaining issues
To wrap it all up, two other issued have flown under the radar somewhat. These are: ringfencing of Pillar II funds for environmental actions; and the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs).
On the first of these, a certain amount of Pillar II funding will be reserved for purely environmental measures. The amount for this remains in question, though a figure in the region of 35% seems the most likely outcome.
On the GAECs, Minister McConalogue has been particularly concerned by GAEC 2 – preservation of carbon rich soils such as peatlands and wetlands.
Earlier this year, concern was raised among farm organisations that this GAEC would impact on the payments for farmers working on these soils.
Following that, the minister moved to reassure farm organisations that this was not the council’s position, and not the position it would take into talks with the parliament and commission.
The outcome to these issues is not crystal clear yet but, hopefully, we’ll know more about where we’re headed by the weekend.