Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski proposes a significant simplification of eco-schemes. What would that involve?
In recent days, Janusz Wojciechowski, EU Commissioner for Agriculture, held a number of meetings with farmers taking part in agricultural protests, as well as with representatives of agricultural organizations from the Baltic countries, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the Visegrad Group countries. The aim of these meetings was to discuss the causes of agricultural protests currently taking place in many European Union countries and how to overcome these problems.
– Apart from national issues, which vary from Member State to Member State, these meetings and talks highlighted two main issues related to EU policy: the threat to European farmers from agricultural imports, especially from Ukraine, but also from the MERCOSUR region and Morocco, which are produced to lower standards than ours and the administrative burden resulting from the Green Deal, admits Commissioner Wojciechowski in a note prepared for Ursula von der Leyen.
And adds:
– Our farmers’ views on these two issues are very strong and can be summarized as follows: stop imports, no more Green Deal!
Farmers appreciate the exceptions, but…
Further in the commissioner’s memo he writes that when it comes to imports from Ukraine, he presented his position during meetings with farmers in a clear and consistent manner.
– I believe that this import should be limited, while offering full support for the transport of Ukrainian grain through sea ports and its further export to markets outside the EU – noted Janusz Wojciechowski.
According to the Commissioner, when it comes to the Green Deal, farmers appreciate the derogation already introduced by the Commission from the obligation to maintain 4% of fallow land and the withdrawal of the legislative proposal to limit the use of pesticides, but at the same time point out that these are temporary and insufficient solutions.
– According to our farmers, the Green Deal would not be such a big problem if it were not for the market destabilization caused by imports from Ukraine. It is difficult to disagree with this assessment, considering that the basic policy assumptions regarding the agricultural aspects of the Green Deal and the CAP reform were created even before Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Of course, the effects of this aggression on the agricultural sector were not taken into account, says Commissioner Wojciechowski in a letter to the President of the European Commission.
And adds:
– In such an unstable market, characterized by falling prices and income volatility, farmers across the EU are unable to normally plan agricultural activities on their farms. Therefore, our actions to support them should go much further than so far.
10% increase in direct payments
The Commissioner further reminds the President of the European Commission of the proposals for additional actions he has presented so far:
- temporary abolition (for 2024) of penalties for farmers who do not meet the conditionality requirements, in particular GAEC 1 (restoration of permanent grassland), GAEC 6 (soil cover in sensitive periods), GAEC 7 (compulsory crop rotation) and GAEC 8 (maintenance 4 % of agricultural land fallow).
According to Wojciechowski, the implementation of the above actions does not require legislative changes, but it is necessary to send a clear signal to the Member States that market destabilization caused by Russia’s aggression may be treated as an “extraordinary circumstance” within the meaning of Art. 3 of EU Regulation 2116/2021 on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy.
- allowing member states to increase direct payments for 2023 by 10% as part of “war” state aid, which would be a welcome response to the inflation caused by the Russian war.
- extension of the temporary crisis framework for state aid for agriculture, which expires in June 2024, for another year, until June 2025.
- exempting farmers from the need to take geotagged photos and enabling them to submit declarations on the implementation of a given practice. The control and verification of these declarations would be the responsibility of national administrations.
The Commissioner also emphasizes that these proposals would not require legislative changes in 2024 – an interpretative guidance from the Commission would be sufficient. But – as he points out – changes to EU implementing regulations would be required by 2025, which could be introduced by then.
Significant simplification of eco-schemes
But in his note, Commissioner Wojciechowski proposes to go one step further. He added a fifth proposal to those already presented (above) – simplification of eco-schemes (eco-program).
– I propose to present farmers with the possibility of using a simplified eco-programme, based on a list of good agricultural practices, such as: 1) mixing straw with soil, 2) using manure, 3) sowing catch crops, 4) no-plough cultivation, 5) extensive grazing on permanent grasslands , 6) cultivation of melliferous plants, 7) biological protection of plants.
The farmer could choose at least two of the above practices, covering at least half of the agricultural land used, and then obtain the right to a lump sum under the simplified eco-scheme. The amount of this payment would have to be calculated and proposed by the Member States.
A farmer wishing to benefit from payments under eco-schemes would have a choice – to use the current system of eco-schemes, specified in individual CAP national strategic plans, or to withdraw from this system and join the simplified eco-scheme as described above – Janusz Wojciechowski proposed to Ursula von der Leyen for consideration .
In the Commissioner’s opinion, this proposal does not require legislative changes in EU law, but only changes in the strategic plans of individual countries, in the manner already provided for in EU Regulation 2115/2021 on CAP strategic plans.
– It is possible that member states will have to change their national legislation – notes Wojciechowski.
And adds:
– Based on conversations and consultations with farmers, I have the impression that both the changes I proposed earlier and the latest one can be well received by farmers and can contribute to reducing tensions, and at the same time do not contradict the needs in the field of the environment and climate.
– .
