Debate: Common agricultural policy - support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States and financed by the EAGF and by the EAFRD - Common agricultural policy: financing, management and monitoring - Common agricultural policy – amendment of the CMO and other Regulations
Date: TUESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2020
Speaker: Janusz Wojciechowski
Language: EN

We are at a crucial moment in the process towards the new common agricultural policy. Both the Council, negotiating the general approach at this very moment in Luxembourg, and the European Parliament here in Brussels are finalising their respective mandates and preparing to enter the decisive stage of trilogues.  It is important for our farmers and our farming community to have clarity on the legal framework for the years to come. We need a strong common agricultural policy to ensure that European agriculture can continue to provide economic, environmental and social benefits for our farmers and citizens in the future. This includes the delivery of stronger environmental and climate ambitions, as set out in the Green Deal and the farm to fork strategy.  I welcome the fact that many honourable Members agree with this basic orientation for the future common agricultural policy. However, I note that some amendments do not share our ambition for a greener and fairer CAP. Let me briefly turn now to the individual proposals to mention a few key points about the Strategic Plan Regulation. If we want to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal, it is essential that the key elements of its green architecture are maintained or further strengthened in the future CAP. This is especially essential if we want the CAP to contribute in a credible manner with 40% of its spending to the 30% overall climate objective of the EU budget.  Let me now highlight the main building blocks of our green architecture and where we stand in this respect. Regarding conditionality, the foundation of the future environmental ambition comes from the proposed enhanced conditionality, including the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) applicable to all farmers as a condition for receiving full direct payment. Strong GAECs are essential for reaching the climate and environmental goals established by the European Green Deal. This is particularly true for GAEC 9, which is key to the success of the biodiversity strategy. The proposal to reduce the scope of this GAEC to arable land only will not be sufficient to reach our targets. While I agree that the problem may be more acute on arable land, such an approach is counterproductive in halting the loss of biodiversity because other types of agricultural land should also contribute to the biodiversity targets. Allowing farmers to fulfil their obligation with respect to biodiversity by simply not spraying pesticides and fertiliser on 5% of their arable land, regardless of the crops, would be a step backwards compared with the current situation. This would not contribute to our biodiversity strategy. Regarding the eco-schemes, these are key and they are designed to make a difference and incentivise farmers to maintain and adopt the practices necessary for the green transition. The Commission strongly supports an ambitious and credible ring-fencing of eco-schemes and welcomes the amendment in this respect. The Commission is, at the same time, fully aware of the risk that some funding could be left unspent if farmers do not sign up to these measures in sufficient numbers, especially in the first years. We share these concerns and are ready to explore possible solutions, such as making ring-fencing in Pillar 1 more flexible or taking on board higher efforts made under Pillar 2 on the environmental objectives. Any flexibility must be compatible with the high environmental and climate ambition and the 40% spending target to which I referred previously.  In that sense, when considering eco-schemes, let’s keep in mind that it is not only about ambitious budget allocations. The quality of eco-schemes is equally essential to delivering our environmental and climate ambition.  During my recent exchange with the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), we discussed a non-exhaustive list of possible eco-schemes. We are ready to continue working with the co-legislator in this area, while acknowledging that Member States should be able to design eco-schemes best adapted to their specific needs and circumstances.  Another layer in our environmental ambition concerns the ring-fencing of 30% of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) budget for agro-environmental measures. We now see attempts to include payments to areas with natural constraints (ANCs) and with limited environmental contribution, as shown by recent evaluations, in this ring-fencing. This is not credible. The European Court of Auditors has rightly criticised this. We are aware of this. This would be backsliding from the current situation where at EU level we are spending 35% on the environment and climate under the Agricultural Fund for Rural Development without ANC payments. If the finally proposed ring-fencing of 35% were to include 40% of ANC payments, this would be a step backwards compared with today. We have to be serious about the new environmental ambition of the CAP and, therefore, we are determined to count under the ring-fencing only payments for farmers or other beneficiaries who do more for the environment than simply respecting baseline obligations. This is not the case of ANC payments.  Please allow me to make one final comment on the Strategic Plan Regulation and the performance review. To ensure the CAP delivers on its core objectives and the Green Deal objectives, we need the right performance indicators and a regular review. If it is to have a credible mechanism to defend publicly the added value of the CAP, the Commission needs the means to adequately monitor and, if necessary, take action against those Member States lagging behind. Ideally, we need a yearly review covering all results indicators included in the CAP plan. A strong monitoring system and the means to steer implementation will allow the Commission to report regularly and comprehensively to the European Parliament, ensuring transparency and enabling public scrutiny.  Regarding the new delivery model and the horizontal regulation proposed by Ms Müller, I note that the Commission proposal for the new common agricultural policy is based on the premise that it is working well. There is continuity from the current period in the structure and role of the governance bodies. The Commission proposal clearly states that the Member States must deliver on performance and have a robust governance system in place, such as paying agencies as part of the integrated administration and control system and the land parcel identification system. This will ensure sound financial management. Member States will check eligibility at beneficiary level. This does not mean that there will be no controls in the future. Moreover, the Commission can take appropriate measures if national control systems are not operational. We will still have a robust assurance model. However, detailed eligibility rules set at the level of the Union requirements would create a system where Member States would have to report on compliance on top of performance and the Commission would have to audit the detailed rules. This two-layer system – compliance and performance-based – would entail an unbearable administrative burden for the Member States. A two-layer system, together with the amendments proposed on the performance review and the performance clearance, may prevent the Member States from timely delivery on performance. Finally, on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation and Mr Andrieu’s report on the proposal, in its 2018 proposal, the Commission maintained the architecture and main features of the current CMO. It is my firm conviction that we should avoid reverting to the old CAP with permanent intervention in markets with automatic triggers of crisis measures that would blow market signals and annihilate the market orientation given to the policy since the 1990s. Market intervention instruments have been successfully triggered in a flexible and timely manner in previous years, together with the possibility for the Commission to adopt exceptional measures whenever needed. Introducing new compulsory procedural steps would weaken and slow down the ability of the European Union to respond to any agricultural market crises. Exceptional measures should respect the same principles of market orientation, avoiding the reintroduction of production quotas.  In relation to the wine package, we are open to discuss some of the amendments, but the duration of our current vine-planting authorisation scheme, introduced in 2016, should not be changed as it would be premature to extract any conclusions today. The regime is due to be reassessed in 2023. Panie Przewodniczący! Jeszcze raz dziękuję za wspólną pracę, za konstruktywną współpracę. Jestem przekonany, że tworzymy reformę, która uczyni rolnictwo europejskie bardziej przyjaznym dla środowiska, dla klimatu, dla dobrostanu zwierząt, ale również reformę, która uczyni rolnictwo europejskie bardziej odpornym na kryzysy. Reformę, która wzmocni bezpieczeństwo ekonomiczne naszych rolników i która zapewni bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe dla naszych obywateli teraz i w przyszłości.