October 12^th marked the publication of the already leaked proposals of the Commission on the CAP reform.  With it started the legislative procedure involving the Parliament and the Council which should lead to the final version of the texts.

Since then it has rained comments in the press ranging from not green enough to putting too much emphasis on sustainability criteria (whatever they might be), a missed opportunity here, a threat to farmer’s income there ... Clearly no one is satisfied but  often for completely opposing reasons.  Is the reform therefore a good compromise?  Surely it is a compromise, but that does not make it necessarily good.

Opposing views are apparently also causing division within the European Parliament and within the European Council. The road to a final consensus will be long and will require concessions from each party.

The general debate is largely on direct payments and rural development. Sticking points here are the capping of direct payments (= put a limit on the amount a farmer can receive), the levelling out of direct payment differences between member states and sectors, the amount of the direct payments made conditional upon new environmental and sustainability requirements, and so on. One can expect that the final outcome will be the result of some juggling with numbers.

Elements of the milk package that are part of these proposals are causing a rift between Parliament and Council. Should every delivery of raw milk be subject to a written contract with a fixed content? Should the acceptance of producer’s organizations become obligatory or left to the discretion of a member state?  What part of what milk supply can be managed by a single PO? Is volume control for PDO’s/PGI’s acceptable? A relatively quick compromise seems possible but nothing is certain in Brussels.

One would almost forget that market measures are also part of the CAP. While not stirring much debate as not much has changed, the future of the private storage scheme for butter is of interest to our business.  The Commission views it as a luxury tool when market prices are high. Only when intervention looms can it help support farmer’s income, hence their choice for an optional scheme. Whether this makes sense and how it could function will be at the centre of our discussions in the months to come. We welcome your thoughts and reflexions on this.