MEPs in the European Parliament – 9th parliamentary term

MEPs in the European Parliament

9th parliamentary term

2019 – 2024

 

2019 July

 

The European Parliament, which has come out of the polls on May 26, will be responsible for guiding the European agricultural and agri-food sectors for the next decade. In this context it has to define a framework that meets the dual challenges to become more sustainable and more profitable.

 

Table of contents

 

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

COMAGRI………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

EPP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

S&D……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

Greens-EFA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

ALDE (Renew Europe)…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

GUE/NGL………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19

ECR……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

Identity and Democracy (ex-ENF)…………………………………………………………………………….. 20

Others – Non-attached Members……………………………………………………………………………… 20

Other MEPs with agri affiliation……………………………………………………………………………….. 20

ComAGRI MEPs:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

COMENVI………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23

EPP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

S&D………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

Greens…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

ALDE (Renew Europe)……………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

GUE/NGL……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

ECR………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

Identity and Democracy (ex-ENF)…………………………………………………………………………….. 28

ComENVI MEPs:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

Energy: Agriculture as an energy provider…………………………………………………………………. 33

AGRI……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

ENVI……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37

ITRE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

TRAN……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40

Wine: EU bodies dealing with wine at European Parliament and Council’s levels…………. 42

ANNEX I……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45

ANNEX II……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

 

full note available on FE members area

FARM EUROPEis a think tank that aims to stimulate thinking on rural economies. It focuses on all policy areas that impact on rural business, with a strong emphasis on agriculture and food policies, and especially the Common Agricultural Policy, which is the main public lever to act at the European level. Its main policy areas include: Agriculture; Food; Environment, Trade and Energy.

Which CAP for the European Union in the 21st century?

Common Agricultural Policy

Which CAP for the European Union in the 21st century?

 

The Common Agricultural Policy was founded to respond to the challenge of food sovereigntyin Europe, on the basis of the fact that a pooling of financial means and the definition of common political guidelines are more effective than the sum of potentially divergent national initiatives.

This investment policy of Europe in its future has met the expectations in terms of agricultural production, both in quantity and in quality. 

Food security remains today the prerequisite for an area to have a strong and credible political strategy in today’s multipolar world.

In a globalized world where food security for all should be guaranteed, the European Union is also responsible for ensuring the sustainability of a stable presence in global food markets.

At the same time, the CAP has evolved to respond more to the challenges of vitality in Europe’s rural areas and to the preservation of the environment with the fight against climate change.

As a base for developing rural areas, managing 75% of Europe and our natural resources, European agriculture is a key factor in this area and farmers are the only reliable relays for effective action.

Today, the CAP must aim to meet the objectives of:

  • Ensuring the food security of Europeans and enabling European citizens to have access to quality food at affordable prices
  • Ensuring a correct level of income for farmers even as the volatility of agricultural markets have increased considerably since the mid-2000s under the combined effect of climate change and the globalization of these markets
  • Preserving the environment, soil, air and water while contributing to the fight against climate change.
  • Keeping the European Union as the world’s largest exporter – the EU is also the world’s largest importer of agricultural and food goods,
  • Maintaining a strong agricultural network, a basis of territorial development of agro-food activities and local economic development in all European regions

Through its successive reforms, the CAP has sought to respond to its challenges one after the other but ultimately treating them separately from one another.

For the lack of a sufficient vision, the societal challenges have been partially addressed by normative stacks while the economic challenges have largely been left fallow.

The challenge for those who will have to decide on future European policies having an impact on agriculture and rural areas of the European Union, is not only to reconcile societal expectations and economic challenges but to put them in synergy by focusing the CAP on the challenge of the dual performance of our agriculture: no economy without more environmental, no environment without economic benefit.

For this, the CAP must become again an investment policy of the European Union in its future and centered its actions on:

  • the investments and innovations in farms and the food chain; agricultural sectors need to seize digital opportunities quickly both for their relationships with consumers and their economic and environmental performance.
  • the incentive for a transition of European agriculture towards dual performance agricultural systems such as integrated agriculture, digital agriculture, organic farming or conservation agriculture,
  • securing European farmers against risks and crises by combining basic direct aid, support for climate risk insurance tools and mutual funds for income stabilization and an effective European crisis management reserve
  • the promotion of a quality European food model, diversified for all European citizens.

6 safety-cones to secure a more efficient and truly common CAP

CAP reform  

In view of the Commission’s proposal,

6 safety-cones

to secure a more efficient and truly common CAP

 

 

A CAP reform proposed by Commissioner Hogan centered on a new governance that confuses flexibilities and renationalization…

 

The reform proposal presented by the Commission on the 1stof June 2018 is above all a proposal for an administrative reform of the CAP. However, the proposed new implementation model would have very strong policy implications by splitting the CAP into 27 national agricultural policies (or more with regionalized agricultural policy strands), by simplifying management for Commission services but increasing the burden for the Member States without any simplification for farmers.

The Commission proposal proposes to each Member State to build its own agricultural policy by defining the eligibility rules, the requirements linked to the different measures that the CAP can fund, its control and penalty policy, as well as its levels of ambitions – essentially environmental – to reach. On this basis, the Commission would have the power to approve or reject these national policies, taking over most of the powers of the co-legislators in terms of guidance and construction of the CAP without, however, being able to withstand the will of strong governments.

While Member States would have full discretion on how to use 98% of CAP funds, two farmers with similar farms in border regions would face different economic environments and ecological requirements, whereas today the CAP establishes a common base of rules but also use of almost 2/3 of the funds of the 1st pillar of the CAP (direct aids). Agricultural markets would quickly become a battleground within the European Union to the detriment of the single market. For some, the reduction of environmental ambition would be a temptation to offer an economic advantage to their sectors.

With this proposal, the Commission says it wants to encourage the Member States when drafting their national agricultural (political) strategies to make more consistent use of the support of the first pillar of the CAP and the second pillar (rural development) and move from a ‘compliance policy’ to a ‘performance policy’ based on achievements and outcome indicators.

While these two objectives are laudable, the presented proposal however does not make it possible to achieve them: the first will be subject to the good will and priorities of various governments, the second would be to be in a position to measure both the economic and the environmental impact of the implemented measures within the framework of the CAP and not – as proposed by the Commission – to be limited to only counting the number of hectares or farmers concerned by such or such a measure without their impact being otherwise assessed in upstream.

 

… 6 safety-cones for a more effective and truly common PAC.

Given the societal, economic and environmental challenges to be met, the European Union needs a CAP that is strong, effective, common and adapted to the realities of a European Union rich in its diversity.

1       Put in place key parameters in basic acts at a common level: minimum level for basic income support

2       Give a European dimension to the ”Eco-Scheme”, concentrating the measures to be proposed by the Member States on the promotion of innovative tools and practices able to encourage the environmental and economic transition of European agriculture

3       Promote the economic dimension of the CAP with a minimum financial objective for risk management tools and for economic and environmental performance investments

4       Define a European reference environmental basis for the ‘super’ conditionality with the possibility for Member States and farmers to propose equivalent measures where it is more appropriate

5       Build an effective and well-financed crisis reserve with guarantees that the European Commission will react without delay in the event of serious market disruption

6       No approval process by the European Commission on the elements agreed by the co-legislators and included in the EU legal framework

In recognition of the important issue of deeply rectifying the Commission’s proposal, the Members of the Agriculture Committee of the outgoing European Parliament (Comagri) adopted a large number of amendments in order to put in place these 6 safety markers and start to give them life in the draft CAP regulations.

It will be up to the next Parliament and its elected representatives to build this efficient Common Agricultural Policy, which is the driving force behind the establishment of dual performance agriculture across the entire European territory in order so that:

  • the European Union resumes its place in the ‘world concert’,
  • European citizens find themselves in their agriculture and in the CAP,
  • farmers find a strength of ambition and a protective environment with the European Union.

 

The amendments adopted by the outgoing Comagri go in the right direction. They are a first step.

The next Parliament will be responsible for deciding on the CAP that will guide the agricultural sectors for the next decade.

 

To put European agriculture back in a position to successfully project, the work of this Comagri will have to be deepened so that:

  • the CAP can be a tool of real incentive to investments of double – environmental and economic – performance,
  • and that transition to these new modes of virtuous production, notably based on digital and new technologies, being a central element of the “eco-scheme” measure of the 1st pillar and investments of the second pillar.

 

Analysis of the flexibilities proposed by the Commission

 

Picture1 

 

Functioning of the CAP:

 

  • Functioning of the current CAP:

Picture2

 

  • Commission’s proposal for a new operation of the CAP:

Picture3

 

Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests

Communication from the European Commission

Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests.

 

2019, July 24th

 

After last December’s announcement of the EU’s initiative to “step up European Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation”, the European Commission has published yesterday its Communication“ on stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests.”

The document was presented by Frans Timmermans (first vice-president of the Commission) and Jyrki Katainen, (vice-president of the Commission and Commissioner for Jobs, Growth, Investment & Competitiveness) and praised both by Karmenu Vella (Commissioner for environment, maritime affairs and fisheries) and Neven Mimica (Commissioner for International Development).

The Commission starts with the following assessment: Despite the EU’s recent positivetrend in the growth of domestical forest cover, the global level still shows a bleak picture of continuing logging and rapidly disappearing forests, in particular regarding tropical primary forests. Indirectly, through consumption and trade, the EU is causing deforestation too as it represents around 10% of final consumption of products associated with deforestation. These products include palm oil, meat, soy, cocoa, rubber, timber and maize in the form of processed products or services. Thus the Communication expressed that deforestation and forest degradation pose a significant risk and challenge that needs to be tackled globally with more actions ”as despite all the efforts, we currently fall short on the conservation and sustainable use of forests”.

Therefore the Commission calls for “a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory actions” and proposes a list of initial actions to reach its two-fold objective of protecting the existing forests and to restore and increase the coverage worldwide.

Regarding the document, Commissioner Frans Timmermans has expressed that due to the EU’s institutional cycle it was not appropriate to come out with new pieces of legislation, however they wanted to already set the scene for the incoming Commission so that they can “hit the ground running”.

Commissioner Jyrki Katainen has stated that despite that the EU cannot extend its legislative power over other countries it still can use its “power to regulate the market”as for the future there shall be “no market in EU for unsustainable products”. Thus they want “to change they way the market operates”.

Therefore the EU wishes to enhance its role and use its power from being a major consumer, investor and trading partner to enhance and enforce environmental and sustainability commitments.

In doing so, the Commission has set out five priorities:

  • To reduce the EU consumption footprint on land and encourage the consumption of products from deforestation-free supply chainsin the EU;
  • To work in partnership with producing countriesto reduce pressures on forests and to “deforest-proof” EU development cooperation;
  • To strengthen international cooperationto halt deforestation and forest degradation, and encourage forest restoration;
  • To redirect financeto support more sustainable land-use practices;
  • To support the availability of, quality of, and access to information on forests and commodity supply chains, and support research and innovation.

Regarding agriculture, land use change and biofuels, the Communication states bioenergy – amongst many other factors – as a driver of deforestation and forest degradation. It goes further on highlighting that negative impact can be caused on forests when pasture of agricultural land previously used for food and feed markets is diverted to the production of fuels from biomass (indirect land use change – ILUC). It also declares that “the EU has started to address the risk of deforestation arising from the increased use of biofuels”by bringing up and describing the EU’s actions in the recasted REDII and its delegated act with its specified sustainability criteria for biofuels. Lastly, it illustrates with FAO’s 2016 Report on the state of world forests that “approximately 80% of global deforestation is caused by the expansion of land used for agriculture”.

Unlike the draft version of text, the final version doesn’t include any reference on the Commission’s report on “The development of plant proteinsin the EU”, highlighting their potential agronomic, economic and climate benefits of protein crops.

Moreover, the final text only calls meat and livestock in general as a cause for deforestation but does not specifically name ‘beef’ as a source and makes no suggestions of modifying the high/low ILUC criteria approach to concretely include new elements – such as cocoa or beef – into it yet.

The reference of the previous version was also deleted on smallholder farmers, namely that “smallholders play a major role in commodity production, they are key actors to fight against deforestation” and currently the final version only states to “develop and implement incentive mechanisms for smallholder farmers to maintain and enhance ecosystem services and products provided by sustainable forest management and agriculture.”

Consequently, for the future in its key actions the Commission intends to:

  • Establish a Platform for multi-stakeholder and Member State dialogueon deforestation, forest degradation and on sustainably increasing world’s forest cover
  • Encourage the strengthening of standards and certification schemes that help to identify and promote deforestation-free commodities
  • In the context of the clean energy for All Europeans legal framework in place, address relevant aspects on renewable energy and biofuels, review all relevant aspects of the report accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 in 2021and, if appropriate, revise Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 in 2023 based on the latest available evidence.
  • Ensure that EU support for agricultural, infrastructure, mining, urban, peri- urban, and rural policies in partner countries does not contribute to deforestation and forest degradation.
  • Assess, together with the EU Member States, possible sustainable mechanisms to catalyse green finance for forests and how to further leverage and increase and redirect both public and private funding.
  • And establish an EU Observatoryon deforestation, forest degradation, changes in the world’s forest cover, and associated drivers a source of reliable data by possibly using the Copernicus satellites for monitoring.

During the Q&A, Commissioner Jyrki Katainenunderlined that increased trading must be more sustainable and that the EU doesn’t want to make any compromises on the issue deforestation. Therefore he also defended the Mercosur tradedeal agreement by stating that it contains both the binding commitment of the Paris Agreement and a strong, robust sustainable development chapter, which gives the EU a stronger hand to have a political dialogue on sustainability related issues”. Therefore he insisted that if approved, it would give the EU more influence in preventing deforestation in Brazil than “just to follow what is the development”.

Industry, NGO, foreign country reactions

The EU’s grain and oilseed trade, crushing and feed industry sectors represented by COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC welcomed the Communication and stated that “setting up effective multilateral institutional dialogue with exporting countries is the most effective way to address sustainable forest management.” 

Green NGOs, such as WWF and Fern has also complimented the work done by the Commission and called it “a pivotal step in securing a much-needed plan of action to address the EU’s significant contribution to global deforestation” but also called for more as well as to “fundamentally reform of the EU’s bioenergy policies, which both drive deforestation and prevent reforestation and are incentivising things that increase emissions dramatically compared to fossil fuels.” 

Tropical forested countries have yet to have officially reacted on the Communication.

Ursula von der Leyen – political guidelines

 16/07/2019

 

Ursula von der Leyen

 

On 16 July 2019, Ursula von der Leyen (DE, EPP), the designated Candidate for President of the European Commission – chosen and backed by the European Council, presented her political guidelines for the upcoming five years to the Members of European Parliament. In it she has made promises to win the support of other groups such as the liberals and socialists to create the needed majority. Nevertheless, for some of these reforms to succeed an approval from Member States is required too.

Her Political Guidelines focus on six headline ambitions for Europe over the next five years and well beyond:

  • A European Green Deal
  • An economy that works for people
  • A Europe fit for the digital age
  • Protecting our European way of life
  • A stronger Europe in the world
  • A new push for European democracy

full note available on FE members area 

2% administrative cost and 15 hours a year: is the 2013 CAP really burdensome for farmers?

11 July 2019

The current CAP – and in particular the 2013 CAP reform – has been accused for a long time now of generating too much administrative burden for farmers. It has been called too complex, expensive and cumbersome. This has generated calls that the CAP needs further simplification. Hence, for its new CAP proposal, the European Commission has expressed that it wishes to propose a more flexible system as a way to simplify and modernize the way the CAP works. In doing so, Agricultural Commissioner Phil Hogan has previously said “simplification has been one of his number one priority since being appointed”and thus the new CAP proposal “will translate into real simplification both for administrations and farmers.”

However, on the 8th of July, the Commission published its own study (Analysis of administrative burden arising from the CAP)[i], created in last November that examines the current costs and administrative burden of the IACS (Integrated Administrative and Control System) based on the 2013 CAP reform, and aimed to “contribute to reflections on simplification and improvement of the systems and procedures for the management of the CAP implementation.” (The study was designed before the publication of the proposals for the post 2020 CAP and therefore as a consequence it does not provide an in depth analysis of the administrative costs of the CAP proposal currently under discussion.)

Despite the previous belief, the study has showed quite the opposite as it comes to the conclusion that farmers did not perceive a significant increase in administrative costs since the 2013 reform. However, it states that ”the 2013 reform led to an increase of the administrative burden on administrations, which has helped to avoid a significant increase of the burden on the beneficiaries”, the farmers.

The study indicates that the “total estimated cost of administrative burden for farmers ranges from €12.5 in Malta to €10,308 in Germany per year” with “overall the median total costs being €236 per farmer and year.”It also states that as a proportion of total farm costs, the median cost share for CAP-related administrative burden is estimated at about 0.4%” and as a “proportion of total CAP aid received the median cost of the administrative burden is estimated at 2%”. Time wise, “the overall median time spent on CAP related administrative tasks was at 15 hours per year” for the whole interviewed sample of farmers, which they described as “part of the job”.

Regarding the administrations, “IACS administrative costs are estimated to represent around just 3% of the annual CAP budget” being it “estimated at between €1.7bn and €1.9bn” or €10.47 per hectare of utilized agricultural area (UAA).”

Thus contrary to the argument that the administrative cost of the CAP is burdensome and expensive the study reveals that compared to other funds it is below both the “overall rate for European Structural and Investment Funds (which are estimated at 4% of the public expenditures) and the administrative costs of the EU (representing around 6% of the total EU budget).”

Nevertheless, the administrative costs vary greatly between the Member States, which is mainly due to their “country specific characteristics” such as the differences within their agricultural sector and administrative structures, organizations, and IT systems. Such finding indicates that this diverging administrative costs could most likely be amplified by the Commission’s CAP proposal as it would give the responsibility to each Member State to build its own agricultural policy, losing the ‘common’ aspect of the Common Agricultural Policy, and thus requiring more administrative capacities at national and regional levels.

The Commission has promoted the slogan of simplification as the basis and as a central feature for the current reform proposal. However, the overall findings of the study undercut the argument that the current CAP’s administrative costs are onerous or expensive for farmers.

More than a total overall of the administration of the policy, the study recommends “automation, digitalization, and new technologies for management and controls”, which can help mitigate the related costs of CAP.

 

 

[i]https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/external-studies/2018-analysis-adm-burden-arising-cap/final-report_en.pdf

 

New Breeding Techniques: strong support at the romanian informal meeting

 

An informal meeting of EU Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries was held at the beginning of June in Romania. Among the main topics on the agenda, agricultural research & innovation was central. MEP De Castro made a point on NBTs by highlighting their “substantive sustainability potential”.

EU Health Commissioner Andriukaitis never misses a chance to reiterate his positive attitude and overall support for NPBTs. “A new EU legislation that considers the latest advanced technologies is needed” he pointed out.

The Commissioner also took part in CRISPRcon 2019 event organized by Wageningen University, during which farmers, scientists, government officials, business owners, NGOs, industry representatives, theologists, biotech companies, were able to exchange opinions, ideas and concerns on the latest developments in the gene editing field and overall its policy future (i.e. applications, regulatory aspects, etc.).

Finally, new, potential “upgrades” of CRISPR gene editing technique are taking ground on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

full note available on FE members area 

Wine sector: the published final figures of the Wine CMO

 

June started with the awaited EC publication of the final figures on the “Financial execution of the national support programme 2019-2023”of the Wine CMO.

While, in terms of wine market dynamics, latest figures by the Spanish Wine Market Observatory (OeMv) presented a first analysis for the first quarter of 2019, during which wine shipments from Spain grew by 6.3% in volume, while they decreased by 6.1% in value terms.

The UIV Wine Observatory also published its comprehensive “Wine by Numbers”report, which shows that overall, in the first quarter of 2019 the main wine markets recorded a slowdown.

Finally, Wine Intelligence recently released a report which provides an in-depth look at alternative wine opportunity across 15 global wine markets. A growing interest for the so-called “alternative wine categories”such as Sustainable, Organic, Lower-alcohol, especially among young consumers, has been reported.

 

full note available on FE members area 

Negotiations on CAP reform: a differed partial general approach

 

June was marked as follows:

  • At the informal summit in Sibiu on 3 and 4 June, the Romanian Presidency of the Council took note of the fact that it would not finally lead towards a partial general approach to the reform regulations, as Member States prefer not to go any further in the negotiations in the absence of financial prospects.
  • At the Agricultural and Fisheries Council of June 18 in Luxembourg, ministers praising the progress report on the reform also noted the many points that will be on the agenda under the Finnish presidency and remain blocked, pending the clarification on the 2021-2027 MFF.

June: highlights in chronology

10/06 Last SCA under the Romanian presidency reveals the extent of the construction

18/06 Report praised… but much remains to be done

 

full note available on FE members area 

 

Negotiations for the EU Budget: any figures at this stage

 

The last “balance sheet” of the discussions for the future Multiannual Financial Framework was presented to the European Affairs Council, but the document does not contain any figures at this stage, neither on the total volume nor on the amounts broken down according to the different headings. While the Commission insists that the deadline should be respected, the European Council of 20 and 21 June did not do more than inviting to follow the discussions this autumn.

June: highlights in chronology

13/06 Commissioner Oettinger pushes to maintain the timetable

18/06 Presentation of budget talks: no figures for the CAP

20-21/06 Details on the next MFF: rendez-vous in October 2019

 

full note available on FE members area