Leaner but not greener with a new era of flexibility and power to member states – these are some of the changes on the menu for the EU’s new plan to simplify the Common Agricultural Policy, according to a leaked document that ARC2020 got its hands on. Natasha Foote gives you a sneak peek of what’s to come.
For the second time in two years, EU agrifood policy is set for a simplification shake-up with the announcement of two shiny new packages. The idea is to streamline legislation, making life simpler for farmers and those receiving EU funds.
The first of these, due to be published on 14 May, sets out to “increase the flexibility for member states and reduce the burden on farmers so that they make use of all CAP opportunities, while maintaining CAP’s role in supporting the transition of European agriculture”.
But what does that mean in practice? Let’s have a look.
Lean on green
Fears that the Commission would remove two of the environmental and climate related articles appear to be founded. Articles requiring an update of CAP Strategic Plans in line with environmental and climate changes are up for the chop, with the proposal arguing this is needed to “avoid unnecessary administrative processes” and “ensure stability”.
The decision was taken despite a previous assessment from the Commission’s agriculture department noting that this carries “reputational risks” but very few “practical implications” (see screenshot below).
“It is a political choice for the Commissioner to make,” the leaked assessment concludes. And the political choice seems to have been made.
The new simplification strategy also adds further tweaks to the environmental conditions attached to CAP funding – the so-called GAECs (good agricultural and environmental conditions).
This would see some changes on GAEC 1, which aims to maintain permanent grasslands to preserve carbon stock, doubling (from 5% to 10%) the allowed decrease in the ratio of permanent grassland compared to the reference year 2018. There is also more flexibility on GAEC 4, which protects water courses, allowing a wider scope for definition.
The draft also suggests giving more leniency to organic farmers, making them automatically compliant with a range of GAECs, and offers the possibility of more support for organic livestock farmers.
Meanwhile small farmers are being offered an increase in the lump-sum payments to a maximum of €2500, which would not be conditional on checks and controls.
As is increasingly the Commission’s modus operandi, the changes, and the plan overall, have not been subject to an impact assessment. This is put down to the “urgent need to put forward proposals to address the identified problems,” the draft states. Instead, a “Staff Working Document” accompanies this proposal by the Commission, assessing the “administrative cost reduction”.
This is despite the fact that impact assessments are required under the EU’s ‘better regulation’ standards, in place to ensure more evidence-based, transparent, and efficient lawmaking.
Strategic changes to Strategic Plans
Yes, strategic seems to be the Commission’s go-to adjective these days.
The simplification strategy sets out plans to reduce the need for the Commission’s green light for every CAP change, instead suggesting it should be required “only for strategic amendments of CAP Strategic Plans,” the plans read.
This is because “experience has shown that the amendments of CAP Strategic Plans contain multiple technical and strategic elements that render them complex, for Member States”.
What counts as a strategic change, I hear you ask?
This is defined by only important elements of the CAP Strategic Plans “impacting significantly the strategy and intervention logic of those plans”. This includes “transfers of financial allocations between the EAFRD and EAGF, maximum and minimum financial allocations, and changes to target and financial plans”.
Member states should also be able to “make and apply all other amendments to their CAP Strategic Plans upon notifying them to the Commission” and these other amendments “should not be subject to Commission approval,” the draft indicates.
Carrot, not stick
The whole ethos of the plan is to strike a “better balance between requirements and incentives” – aka, more carrot than stick. This is needed for “guiding the sustainability transition of farming and fostering innovation,” it argues.
This also includes a reduction in controls and checks on farmers, introducing a “one control per year” approach. This means that member states should not select a beneficiary that has already been selected for an on-the-spot check for that year.
It adds that for eligibility conditions monitored under the area monitoring system, on-the-spot checks “do not appear necessary”.
Crisis caveat
The simplification plan comes with the caveat that all of this can be thrown out the window in the event of a crisis, like a cyberattack, infrastructure sabotage or armed conflict.
“Member States should therefore be able to grant necessary temporary derogations from the requirements set out in their CAP Strategic Plans, where an armed conflict, hybrid threats such as coordinated cyberattacks or infrastructure sabotage [which] prevent farmers or other beneficiaries from complying with those requirements in a given year,” the draft sets out.
Tensions simmering
But it seems not everyone is happy with the proposed changes, with some tensions simmering behind the scenes.
Agriculture Commissioner Hansen seems stuck between a rock and a hard place, caught between demands for simplification from his big boss, President von der Leyen, and the rest of the Commission agriculture crew in DG AGRI, who have reportedly been unhappy with how much of the previously agreed legislative framework is being ripped up.
So things are a bit complicated when it comes to the simplification plans.
But at least we don’t have to wait too long to see how much of this draft makes it into the final proposal, with the plans due to be published on 14 May. ARC will keep you up to speed.
This article is produced in cooperation with the
Heinrich Böll Stiftung European Union.
More
Spilling Europe’s Dirty Secrets: Uncorking the Toxic Trade in Banned Pesticides
EU’s Competitiveness Compass – North-Pointing or are Things Heading South for Agri Policy?
LEAK: A sneak peek at the EU’s new blueprint for agrifood policy
The EU Agri-Food Playbook 2025 – What to expect, why it matters
Ukraine – The Elephant in the Room that Could Unlock CAP Reform
Do the 28 CAP Strategic Plans Progress Fairness for Farmers?
CAP not Matching Europe’s Green Ambitions, say Auditors (again)
CAP Strategic Plans: A European Food and Agricultural Policy for Times of War
Re-CAP: Breaking down the breakdown of the EU’s green farming measures
