Members of the European Parliament's agriculture committee this week worked through 8,000 amendments submitted by parliamentarians to the EU Commission's proposals for reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy. Voting on the proposed reforms took place in the Agriculture committee on Wednesday and Thursday (23rd and 24th Januray) in Brussels.

MEPs had to make their decisions without knowing what the eventual budget for agriculture will be and with less than a year to go before the changes are due to be implemented. Following the two-day session, MEPs on the committee said their overall aim had been to create a "fairer" cap, whilst making the controversial greening element "more flexible".

The CAP is the EU's single largest spending policy; it accounts for up to 40 percent of the entire budget, or €55 milllion a year. In the run up to reforms and negotiations for the next budget period (2014-2020) various NGOs called for greater accountability as well as more social and environmental considerations to be included in the spend, with a view to making the CAP more progressive and bringing it in line with EU taxpayers' desires.

However, although moves to limit the amount individual claimants can be paid will be welcomed by many, as will the cessation of payments to golf courses, airports and other non-farming recipients of CAP subsidies, MEPs voted to seriously weaken environmental measures proposed by the Commission. They said this was to "reduce red tape and cope with market challenges."

On Wednesday, Paolo De Castro, chair of the committee, said, "This is the moment of truth. The Agriculture Committee has said today how the new CAP should look. It should be more efficient, greener and able to respond to the enormous challenges ahead of us. Such ambitious goals entail higher costs. So any further cuts to the CAP budget are simply inacceptable."

Proposed changes

To ensure that direct payments go only to 'active farmers', the committee included a list of possible claimants, such as airports and sports clubs, which should be automatically excluded from EU funding. The definition of an 'active farmer' still needs to be finalised.  

They also said no member state's farmers should receive less than 65 percent of the EU average subsidy payment. EU rapporteur Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos elaborated, "The committee has voted for a stronger redistribution of aid among member states, as it is difficult to accept differences of roughly €300 per ha between farmers in different member states."

Vote to cap direct payments

MEPs also endorsed Commission proposals to cap direct payments to any one farm at €300,000, reduce payments to those receiving between €250,000 and €300,000 by 70 percent, and payments to those receiving between €200,000 and €250,000 by 40 percent. Payments to farms receiving between €150,000 and €200,000 would be cut by 20 percent.

To ensure that the money saved from capping payments to large businesses and landowners remains in the region where it was capped, MEPs proposed it be used for rural development programmes. Cooperatives are exempt from the capping rules. Cooperatives and producers' organisations also benefitted from new powers aimed at strengthening their bargaining position within the supply chain.

More flexible greening

However, although the committee made moves on inequitable distribution of CAP payments, they failed to uphold the Commission's desire to 'green' European farming. The MEPs said rules that would make 30percent of direct payments conditional on compliance with mandatory greening measures "must be made more flexible".

Although they opted to retain the three key measures - crop diversification, maintaining permanent pasture and permanent grassland and creating "ecological focus areas", they introduced caveats hobbling these regulations and reduced the percentage of land each holding should leave fallow for regeneration from 7 percent to 3percent, rising to 5 percent by the end of the budget period.

Farms already certified under national of regional environmental stewardship schemes, will be exempt from greening measures, providing these schemes are at least equivalent to the positive effects greening would have, MEPs said.

They also suggested member states could also set up an early warning system, which would send an initial warning to a farmer in breach of certain regulations for the first time and inform them of the need to remedy the breach. This warning would be followed by checks to ensure that the breach has been put right, with the farmer avoiding a fine "unless the non-compliance constitutes a direct risk to public or animal health."

New entrants

Measures to support new entrants, including a grant scheme, and the retention of Less Favoured Area scheme also passed the committee vote.

Finally, the committee rejected a Commission proposal to make public the names and municipalities of those in receipt of direct payments or money from rural development programmes. In the past, many MEPs have expressed concern that such extensive transparency rules would breach beneficiaries' privacy rights and could be rejected by the European Court of Justice.

Although Scottish MEPs George Lyon and Alyn Smith said they were "satisfied" with the outcome of this week's voting, and industrial farming lobbyists in the NFU and Copa Cogeca said reforms are "going in the right direction," parliamentarians from across the political spectrum have decried the agreed reforms.  

Conservative agriculture spokesperson Julie Girling said the reforms would be "bad on every level" if implemented. The European Green Party dismissed the reforms as "a missed opportunity for the fundamental reform the CAP needs."

Following voting, José Bové, Co-chair of the parliament's agriculture committee, said "MEPs have sadly missed an opportunity to make the CAP fit for the 21st Century. Instead of voting for a radical overhaul to promote sustainable farming and food systems in the interests of farmers and citizens, MEPs have voted for the CAP to plough ahead unsustainably."

He continued, "While MEPs voted in favour of capping direct payments to farmers under the CAP, the level set is far too high to make a difference. Huge farming businesses which do not need the funding will continue to get big pay-cheques, whilst depriving other areas of the CAP from funding, notably for schemes that could be used to promote more sustainable farming. Yesterday's shambolic and rushed voting procedure also cast a shadow on these crucial votes."

In February the EU Council will meet to set out the next EU budget, including the CAP budget. The CAP reforms, as agreed upon by the agriculture committee will go before the European Parliament before negotiations with individual member states begin. The Parliamentary vote is scheduled for March.