At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 May 2026, Bulgaria, supported by Greece, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Czechia, Lithuania, Italy, France, Austria, Croatia, and Latvia, proposed a derogation from the N+2 decommitment rule for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for calendar year 2026. The proposal cites the war in the Gulf, blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, rising crude oil and natural gas prices, and increased production costs for fertilizers and energy in agriculture. Bulgaria argued that farmers face a stalemate with falling farm-gate prices and reduced investment, risking non-compliance with commitments and loss of EU funds. They called for a targeted amendment to Regulation 2021/2116 to introduce an exceptional paragraph in Article 34, aligning with the N+3 rule used for cohesion and fisheries funds.
Greece fully supported the need for flexibility, advocating a permanent N+3 rule for the 2023-2027 period but backing the temporary derogation for 2024. France specifically called for a three-year payment period for 2027 commitments to prevent a 'blank year' for agricultural investments. Commissioner for Agriculture Christophe Hansen acknowledged the request but noted that existing provisions, including force majeure and flexibilities under the fertilizer action plan, already allow for derogations. He stressed that timely implementation is in member states' hands and suggested rerouting unused funds. The Council took note of the information and comments.
Stakeholder impact EU farmers and rural development beneficiaries face liquidity and implementation challenges due to rising input costs and falling prices, risking loss of EU funds under the current N+2 rule. National paying agencies would benefit from reduced administrative burden and fewer fund cancellations under an N+3 rule. EU taxpayers may see slower absorption of funds but reduced risk of forfeiture. The European Commission would face pressure to amend regulations, potentially setting a precedent for further flexibility. The proposal highlights a cleavage between member states seeking greater flexibility to protect agricultural investments and the Commission's preference for timely implementation and existing derogation tools.