MEPs in the European Parliament yesterday announced the results of crucial voting on Common Agricultural Policy reforms. The parliament had assembled to vote on proposals published by the EU Commission, which had then passed through the parliament's Agriculture Committee, where almost 8,000 amendments were discusses.

image expired

Until Monday it was believed that, due to the large number of amendments which remained (around 350) and a lack of agreement on the direction CAP reform should take, Agriculture Committee MEPs would be allowed a second voting session, with a view to further paring down the revised proposals. On Monday, Committee chair Paolo De Castro halted proceedings at the last minute, acknowledging that the move would appear undemocratic.

This is the first time MEPs will have equal legislative powers in farm policy reform. Since plans for a controversial second meeting were announced on Friday, De Castro had found himself under significant pressure from groups within and outside the Parliament, who objected to the Committee (Comagri) being allowed a second 'extraordinary' meeting to vote on reforms.

Nevertheless, De Castro appeared content with the outcome of voting in the full Parliament. On Wednesday the Comagri chair commented, "Today we have struck a proper balance between food security and improved environmental protection, so that the new EU farm policy can deliver even more public goods to EU citizens."

Whole parliament vote leads to some changes     

On Wednesday, in contrast to Agriculture Committee voting, the plenary opted to name beneficiaries of EU funding and make moves to ensure funding goes only to 'active farmers'. MEPs also voted to close the funding gap experienced by farmers across Europe faster than the Commission had proposed.  

They upheld moves to provide extra funding for young farmers and elected to maintain the cap on direct payments to any one farm at €300,000, as established in Comagri's initial vote. The plenary also voted to make 30 percent of direct support conditional on farmers fulfilling certain environmental conditions; they broadly supported the three main areas of 'greening' (crop diversification, permanent pasture and maintaining Ecological Focus Areas) identified by the Commission.

Moves to exempt some farmers from 'greening' requirements were quashed, meaning that the Commission's original proposals abide. A certain amount of funds will also be allowed to shift between pillars one and two.

Proposals for so-called 'Double Payments,' supported in Comagri talks, were ruled to be "unacceptable" in the full Parliament vote. Following Comagri's January vote, many MEPs had expressed concern at the Committee's assertion that farmers being paid for work conducted as part of an Agri-environment scheme should be entitled to both payments from the scheme and CAP funding for environmental work. Detractors in the parliament suggested this would amount to claimants being paid twice for delivering the same thing, which would be illegal under European law.

The moves to increase transparency in the reformed CAP were welcomed by parliamentarians and interest groups alike. The European Green Party had been heavily critical of Comagri's stance on transparency. Declaring his support for the move, Lib-Dem MEP for North-West England, Chris Davies said taxpayers have a right to know how and where their money is being spent.

The CAP policy has repeatedly come under fire for supporting large landowners who are not directly involved in food production, including airports, country clubs and the British Royal Family. On Wednesday, Mr Davies pointed out that some MEPs are also CAP beneficiaries and urged them to stand aside in voting.

Both sides of CAP debate reject outcome

However, although the Parliament hailed this week's vote as a success, organisations on both sides of the political divide have offered harsh criticism of the reforms.

International green group Friends of the Earth cautiously welcomed the Parliament's decision to "continue the process of 'greening' European agriculture, though spokesperson Stanka Becheva said the Parliament's commitment to greening was insufficient and called for significant changes to be made in the next round of CAP debating. On Wednesday, she explained, "This is a strong signal to national governments that people do not want their taxes spent on propping up an industrial farming system that is destroying the environment, causing endless food scandals and ruining the livelihoods of small farmers Politicians must listen to citizens instead of big business and produce a truly green farming policy for Europe."

Speaking from the opposite pole of the farming world, NFU Deputy President Meurig Raymond said from Strasbourg, where he had been involved in lobbying ahead of this week's vote, that he remains "deeply concerned by some important elements" of the proposals. He expressed unease at the failure to secure exemptions for farmers deemed to be 'green by definition'. The NFU leader said that several policy decisions made in Parliament would prove to be "market distorting" if implemented in 2014.

Mr Raymond did approve of some aspects of the Plenary vote. He said, "I would like to thank MEPs for approving new measures to ease the burden of inspections and bring in more proportionate fines for minor offences." Though he added, "It is deeply disappointing that MEPs voted to reinstate many of the cross compliance requirements that the Agriculture Committee had previously voted to remove, particularly the hugely burdensome and controversial sheep EID regulations."

Conservative's in the Parliament claimed on Wednesday that the proposals passed would, if enacted, "not be a reform of the CAP but a regression back to the excesses of the 1980s." European Greens, on the other hand, described the outcome as "a missed opportunity for the fundamental reform the CAP needs."

Green agriculture MEP and party spokesperson Martin Häusling said, "The proposals for 'greening' the CAP are not worthy of the name. The plans are voluntary and riddled with exemptions, so they will clearly fail to fundamentally shift EU agriculture to a sustainable path, as they will not be implemented on the vast majority of farms. Instead of real crop rotation with legumes, which is a win-win-win for the environment, soil fertility and lowering farmers' costly dependency on chemicals, the CAP will promote weaker crop 'diversification'."

He continued, "There were some silver linings. Wrongheaded proposals on double-funding, whereby farmers would get paid twice to do the same thing, were deleted. MEPs also voted to support greater transparency of how the CAP budget is distributed. However, this is scant consolation given the bigger picture of today's outcome."

Birdlife Europe Spoksperson Trees Robijns added, "The European Parliament has defused some of the worst counter reform proposals that came out of the agriculture committee, but has managed only partial damage-control. The text coming out of the Parliament today would still leave us with a dysfunctional CAP that does not address the urgent crisis in the countryside and does not justify 40 percent of the EU budget being spent on CAP." Activists calling for radical CAP reform claim that 80 percent of payments by value go to just 20 percent of claimants.

Reacting to the proposals, EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos said it is of utmost importance that an agreement is reached soon on changes to the CAP "so that week can take the needs of smaller farmers into account and support young farmers at a European level." The commissioner said he hopes to secure a deal on CAP reform by June.

The final form EU agriculture policy will take will be decided over the course of three-way talks between EU Farm ministers, the Commission and the parliament, scheduled to begin in late march or April.