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 

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 

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 

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 

Brussels, 12 June 2019

Governments can craft appropriate frameworks under Effort Sharing Regulations – the National plans for Climate and Energy to be approved by the European Commission should match the overall EU ambition – agricultural sources of energy (biofuels and biogas) are existing and cost effective solutions that can go along with sustainable electricity alternative in order to reduce EU dependency to carbon intensive energies. 

The ten years to 2030 will be crucial in the global fight against climate change. Based on this scientific consensus, the European Union set ambitious targets. In the coming months, the European Commission will assess the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) submitted by the Member States. It will be of an utmost importance to make sure that those plans deliver on the pan-EU ambition and define a policy path able to transform global commitment into practice.

During Farm Europe’s Green Energy Platform Workshop today, presentations have shown that not only solutions exist in the short term but those solutions can be effective at an affordable price. The right mix should include not only sustainable electricity, but also the capacity of EU-sourced biomass to deliver low carbon energy via biofuels and biogas.

“Realistic and affordable solutions are urgently needed to reach the EU’s 30% savings target.  NECP policies that combine electric driving and sustainable biofuels are the most effective pathway to high impact carbon savings for Member States,” Carlo Hamelinck, Associate Director of Navigant, the international sustainable energy consultancy said, presenting a report assessing the most effective strategies to be implemented by the Member States.

Success in National plans means mobilizing many solutions with all options needed in combination, in particular in the transport sector, which is one of the most challenging sectors to achieve carbon savings. According to the Navigant research report* biofuels provide an immediate solution to decarbonising energy by directly displacing fossil fuels in existing combustion fleets. They reduce liquid fuel emissions by 65/70% and account for 5% of energy in EU transport today.

Governments can devise appropriate frameworks under the Effort Sharing Regulations. Support policies with strict sustainability requirements can drive biofuels’ carbon performance and stimulate increased volumes of alternative fuels. Biomass potential is today underutilised. Agriculture can deliver the volumes required sustainably, with additional socio-economic benefits for Member States.

Biofuels have the lowest carbon abatement cost of alternative fuels, and electric driving the highest, in the Navigant study region. Measured in cost per tonne of CO2 equivalent today, electric driving costs exceed €700, and conventional biofuels €200. Electric costs will decrease, but biofuel cost will fall even faster.  By 2030 the abatement cost is expected to fall below €200 for electric, and to around €20 for conventional biofuels. The difference arises because electric driving is more expensive per KM driven and the average carbon intensity of grid electricity in the EU is considerable.

*The Workshop was organised by the Green Energy Platform to mark to publication of the final Navigant research report “2030 Transport Decarbonisation Options” commissioned by Farm Europe (Ecofys2019_Transport decarbonisation 2030 CEE). The research was conducted across nine EU member states in the CEE region.  Farm Europe is a Brussels based multicultural think tank that aims to stimulate thinking on rural economies.

This month, the main highlights for the wine sector at EU and global level range from further reflections and thoughts on copper use (in France mainly), new adopted rules (at EU level), which are aimed at simplifying and homogenizing wine making practices in the EU while increasing the consistency between EU oenological practices and international oenological codex of the OIV, and discussions on re-discovered (“modern”) winemaking techniques.

While, in terms of wine market dynamics, latest figures show that, globally speaking, (i) wine markets are becoming more heterogeneous, (ii) the Chinese slowdown in wine imports (- 25%) had quite an impact on main EU wine producers (Spain -40%, France -35% and Italy -19%). Whereas, on the U.S. side, in the first three months of 2019 imports decreased in value terms but increased in quantities (-3.4% and a slight growth in volume of +1.6%).

Finally, main trends in wine consumption that have been identified by IWSR are as follows: (1) the overall expected reduction in wine consumption (mainly among young people) with however an increased attention to the quality/price ratio, and (2) the “health consciousness” aspect among consumers.

full note available on FE members area 

The ECJ ruling on NBTs of last July continues to provide ground for debates at EU level (and not only). At the end of last month, 22 European business organizations representing a vast array of stakeholders (i.g. producers, processors and traders’ groups) expressed once again their concerns by calling for a substantive legislative change on the subject.

At the same time, the Australian government recently decided to not regulate the use of gene-editing techniques in plants, animals and human cell lines that do not introduce new genetic material, alongside the U.S. and Japan’s examples. Russia is on the same path, having recently announced a new big investment in a federal research programme on gene-editing aimed at developing 10 new varieties of gene-edited crops and animals by 2020.

Finally, on May 14^th, on the occasion of the last Agriculture and Fisheries Council, Ministers were informed by the Dutch delegation about the follow up to the ruling of the ECJ on organisms obtained by mutagenesis. A unified EU approach regarding the implementation of the EU GMO legislation was at the core of the discussion.

full note available on FE members area 

May was marked as follows:

– EU Agriculture Ministers spoke during last Agri-Fish Council meeting on the proposed CAP performance framework, with positions oscillating between an annual evaluation, an evaluation every two years and two evaluations over the whole budget programming period.

– Experts from 5 Member States having met in SCA, discussed sectoral interventions and expressed their reservations about the pace driven by the Romanian Presidency which was still aiming to reach a partial general agreement before the end of June, while the next Multiannual Financial Framework remains uncertain.

– In early June, at the informal Council in Romania, the Presidency had to acknowledge the impossibility of reaching a partial approach, which was opposed  by almost 20 delegations.

May: highlights in chronology

14/05 Strategic Plans: Ministers Review Performance Framework

20/05 Experts put the brakes on the calendar

28/05 Phil Hogan “sells” his reform to young farmers

full note available on FE members area 

April: highlights in chronology

09/04 Preparation of the European Council in June by the European Affairs Ministers: persistent divergences for the future CAP budget

15/04 Some ministers reiterate call for solid budget

full note available on FE members area 

• European Parliament: Comagri operates a major community reframing of the reform project

March was marked by the elaboration of the drafting of the compromise amendments by ComAgri MEPs on the three texts of the reform rapporteurs, to reinforce the commonality of the rules, as well as alternative amendments. These amendments are put to the vote on 1 April (single CMO), 2 April (strategic plans Pillar 1 & Pillar 2) and 8 April (horizontal regulation) respectively.

The Members of the agricultural committee of the European Parliament adopted yesterday and today the two first reports on the Common Agricultural Policy reform (proposal on National strategic plans, and single CMO). The amendments voted by the COMAGRI MEPs significantly improve the initial proposal of the European Commission. 

Despite the tight schedule, the Committee gave a strong orientation to the next CAP, striking the right balance between economic and environmental performance and between flexibilities and common rules.

Among the orientations given by the MEPs on the strategic plans, the flagship decisions are:

• the definition of the parameters for the financial allocation of the first pillar, with 60% for basic payment support and redistributive payment, 20% for the ecoscheme and 10+2% for coupled support in addition to 3% for sectorial schemes;

• a proper cross-compliance with clear EU rules and the possibility for Member States to propose equivalent measures, which guarantees a level playing field across Europe while offering the possibility for a real simplification;

• a balanced allocation of the second pillar targeting at least 30% to environmental objectives (including a maximum of 40% of the allocation for less favoured areas supports) and at least 30% to investment and risk management tools;

• on internal convergence: at least 75% of average direct subsidies by 2024 and 100% by 2027;
• a support to digital and precision farming via investment incentives which are necessary to accompany a forward-looking EU agriculture;

• a capping at €100.000 (possible deduction of 50% of agriculture-related salaries), unless the Member States implement a 10% redistributive payment;

• a limitation at 15% of financial transfers from 1st to 2^nd pillar and 5% from 2^nd to 1st pillar.

• compulsory redistributive payments of at least 5 % in each Member state,

• Deletion of EFAs provision from the new conditionality (cross compliance), minimum EFAs to be defined by MS and inserted in eco-schemes.

• implementation of the CAP reform postponed – at this stage – to 2022.

When it comes to the single CMO, the Committee set in the Regulation:

• the possibility for reduction scheme as successfully implemented in 2015-2016 to cope with the milk crisis;

• improvements in the competition rules to further encourage farmers’ organisations;

• extension of the Regulation tools for the wine sector to 2050 and a good compromise for wine labelling.

The next step will take place next week on April 8th, with the vote on the 3rd Regulation of the CAP reform, tackling financial management, audit and controls rules. This Regulation is a cornerstone of the CAP reform proposals. It will be of the utmost importance for the MEPs to guarantee that the CAP does not turn into 27 different national frameworks without a solid EU framework. In the meantime, this Horizontal Regulation must set the parameters and provide financial capacity to the CAP to react effectively in case of crisis, via a reformed crisis reserve.

• Member States: Delegations that refuse to enter the negotiation process pending budget decisions.

• Positions of Member States in the SCA on the voluntary or mandatory nature of measures of the strategic plans and on the performance framework
• An Agricultural Council which revealed the reluctance of Member States to negotiate in a piecemeal way the texts of the reform, in particular in the absence of visibility on the MFF
• The request from the Member States for a transitional regulation to ensure continuity of aid in 2021, when the delay of entry into force of the new CAP is now recognized by the Commission itself

full note available on FE members area