- “We think that the new single programming framework will offer opportunities for more synergies across policy areas, for example, when it comes to investment in connectivity, infrastructure and essential services in rural areas. Moreover, I'm sure you will have seen that president von der Leyen has proposed a 10% spending target for for for rural support that could help to ensure continuity of investment in rural areas and guarantee financing for these territories. Um, I am in the committee, so let's put some focus on regions. Um, regions will continue to play a pivotal role. Um, today, uh, when implementing the cap, regional authorities play a significant role. They are actively shaping instruments within Cap strategic plan to address the diversity of local conditions and align interventions with territorial needs under the new regional and National Partnership Plan. This will continue and Member States can maintain continuity with today's management model, allowing, of course, regional adaptation to cap intervention. This principle is also further underscored by the recent proposal from the Commission to introduce a regional check to further guarantee the full involvement of regional and local authorities in the preparation of the plan, and in particular of its dedicated chapter on the cap. So we stand a committed to work now with with you, with the Co-legislator, with Parliament, as well as with the Council to further improve this proposal. And I stand ready to answer your question. Thank you very much.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Agricultural funding
- “Thank you very much. Chair, and thank you very much. Um, to you all for your, um, question. So, um, I would start with, um, what was said in relation with the fact that there is no more pillar one and pillar two, but there is still a lot that we will do. Um, in terms of, of course, supporting farmers income and supporting also, um, investment, um, and um, um, environmental and climate action. We've kept I want to confirm we've kept in our proposal all the tools that used to be in pillar one and pillar two. So there is no change from that perspective. And I would like to reassure, in particular Mrs. Repp, that, um, the payment, the direct payment are still there. They are called, they change their name and they are paid, um, on the basis of different modalities. But this is a digressive area based payment, which used to be called. I'm sorry, I'm going to be super technical and technocratic. This and Chris incisive. So the new name is there and it's a new modality to target to those in, in need. So basically all the, the, the capital is there when it comes to the budget. What we've done is that and then of course there may be a discussion on whether this is enough or not, but we've ringfenced we've protected the budget that would go to farmers as beneficiaries. So nobody can else can tap into the money that farmers benefit in terms of the so-called direct payment or the Derby's agro environment investment, um, as well as coupled support, uh, support to areas under natural constraints.”
Agriculture (green) · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “And for example, if in lidar there is, you know, then this will be paid outside the ring fence amount. So no worry there. Um for lidar because this was coming back. And, uh, we share your analysis that this is a successful tool. Um, the next cap says that member states shall put in place lidar, so it is even stronger than in the current cap. How much budget for lidar? This is not ring fenced. That's true. So this is part of the overall envelope of the national and regional plan. Outside the ring fenced amount. But we strongly believe that this has been successful in many member states, and we see no reason why it shouldn't continue to be selected by member states and where member states will allocate resources. Then you made a I think it was Mr. Nascimento, a comment on the envelopes for the different member states. Um. We used the 2027 payment both in pillar one and pillar two, as a basis to the to design the envelope of the member States, and then took into consideration what we've called the agricultural prosperity gap, which aims at um, um, improving the fairness of the distribution between member states, in particular the member states.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “We have also increased the budget for coupled income support, underscoring our commitment to empower the sectors which face difficulty and are important for socio economic or environmental reasons. For example, here we are thinking about not only but in particular extensive livestock farming. Risk management tools are also strengthened to bolster resilience against market disruption and natural adversities. As we know that farmers are more and more and more often, um, facing the impact of climate change, uh, when it comes to environmental and climate. In line with the vision, the Cap support moves from a focus on requirements to more incentives. Um, we embed in our proposal what we call agri environment and climate actions to encourage sustainable practices. So building on the current Cap toolbox, uh, but with simpler rules and not making no difference in terms of whether this is included in pillar one or pillar two, but the tools remain essential with both annual payment and multi-annual approach we introduced. We don't, of course. Um, uh, remove or give up with some conditions that the the farmers needs to comply with. Um, but we simplify the current approach approach. We introduce a new farm stewardship, which will ensure minimum EU requirements and protective practices for environment and climate. But here a change is that member States will be able, if they wish so, to fund. So to pay farmers for some of these so-called protective practices which had been introduced by the Commission in its recent um um simplification package. Support for rural areas, um remain important. So beyond the ring fence budget for farm income support, measures like leader and local cooperation initiatives are maintained to boost rural communities, fostering inclusivity and cohesion.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- “Thank you very much, chair. So, um, to clarify the question, if a farmer is asking you, what is it that I will be able to get from this new cap compared to what I get now? I think the simple answer is you used to have as a farmer, um, direct payment as we call them, so incisive you'll get dabis digressive area based payments. Okay, modalities are slightly different to be fairer, but this is the same. Okay. And this is going to be to support farmers income and then Complementing that if Alma used to have agro environment payment investment on the farm. So payment for investment payment under areas under natural constraint. Voluntary coupled support in particular for livestock. I am a young farmer. I got also a particular payment. I am a small farm. I got also a particular payment and in addition I will have in the new cap a transition payment. All this remains. This remains. This doesn't change. We are making it. We are not calling it part of pillar two or pillar one. But this is there and it doesn't change for farmers. And we protect the budget that is dedicated to this payment and only these payments, meaning outside this toolbox, other payment that could be, you know, given to farmers.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “You might remember what we used to call the external convergence, uh, because not all member states benefited from Taking into account, you know, different economic situation benefited from the same, um, direct payment, the same level of direct payment. So we in a way with a different mechanism, we further improved, you know, what we call the convergence of payment to farmers between, uh, across the member states. So there is no reason why what was done, for example, for Portugal, including pillar one and pillar two, there is no reason why Portugal would not have been fairly treated. But of course, let's then look at the figures and discuss that together. There is room for discussion. Always. Um, and then it's true that we have limited the number of interventions that are 100% funded by the EU. It is true. So it will be the derbies, the digressive area based income support. The payment for cotton, which is dedicated to some specific member states, and the Small Farmers Payment, um, and uh, the coupled support payment, all the other payments and interventions, whether they are in the ring fence amount or outside, will be subject to co-financing, something that I am pretty sure we will discuss with the co-legislators.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “Also, I want to confirm that the important, um, tools in particular to support, uh, agriculture and farmers in this outermost region will remain. But it is true that we have proposed a co-funding, uh, this, uh, this measures um, you've said that, but you said it kindly that we are stubborn. Um, I think that it it is fair to say that we've made a move. You've noticed that we've made a move on three key points, including the role of region in the future MFF and Cap. That's important. That may not be enough. Let's then work together to further improve this proposal. Um, I concur also with what was said. I think it was in particular, Mr. Hartman. Um, on um, attractivity attractivity for the sector means better profitability. Indeed. That's super important. Um, so how can we do that? Continue to obviously support farmers income, make sure that we reduce unnecessary administrative burden. You mentioned that I think we've made efforts there if there is still room for improvement. We stand ready to continue with, uh, we've already worked together on two simplification package. Uh, so that's that's good. Um, and services are needed in rural areas, not just for farmers but also for farmers. Hence the fact that we have, you know, this spending target for rural areas, um, in the nfp's, um. I think I covered most of your points. If not, I apologize, and I stand ready to compliment.”
Funding for OCTs and outermost regions · Agricultural funding
- “So all this is covered and this is covered under the protected um, budget, the so-called ring fenced, uh, amount. Um, you also mentioned this reference to 10% for rural areas, which is a spending target that obviously now, uh, we but not just us, we need to together operationalize. Obviously. Um, my understanding is that it doesn't Include the ring fenced amount, neither the one for farmers nor the one for fishermen. So this is in addition. So this is um, uh, spending target, which is not based which doesn't include this amount. And this will cover many of the interventions that still exist and which I concur with. You are super important. This will cover some of the investment in infrastructure, for example in rural areas for basic services in rural areas. Um, this will also include the continuation of the successful, uh, you said it, uh, Mrs. Katainen, uh, the successful tool called leader or local cooperation. So all this will continue to exist. We've even made it mandatory for member states to propose these interventions to the farmers. And they will they will be funded outside the ring fence amount, which will say stay for farmers as beneficiaries. Um. When it comes to the outermost region, uh, yes, indeed. We've proposed the co-funding. So point taken. This is a significant change here.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Funding for OCTs and outermost regions · Agricultural funding
- “And I'll come back to that in a minute. But we are also looking at all policy areas where we can support farmers and more generally, the agri food sector, so that it continues to be attractive, competitive, resilient and hand in hand, working hand in hand with nature, recognising that as the European Union, we've made a great job when it comes to food security. But we need to further work to consolidate this success. And many of the points that have been mentioned in the two presentations and in your interventions are part of the vision, and that's very encouraging also to see that we are aligned there. You're talking about more synergy and consistency. And you've mentioned, you know, that we need to make sure that our trade policy, for example, is much more aligned with the reality and the domestic policies that we are designing and implementing in the European Union. We need also to make sure that the the food chain is better functioning. I know you're working on that. In particular in the context of the revision of the CMO, the Common Market Organisation regulation. But we are going to work also on the Unfair Trade Practices Directive that we are going to evaluate and possibly also revise. You've made reference also to the fact that it's not just about providing farmers with public funding.”
EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain · EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
- “Okay. Thank you very much, Mrs. Chair. And thank you very much for organizing this very interesting workshop. Um, thank you to Professor Hennessy and Professor Frascarelli for their very, um, clear and informative, um, presentation. Uh, this is. Very useful for us, uh, to, uh, attend this, this event as we are preparing the next cap. Let me maybe share with you a couple of comments. I would say around five comments I have in relation with the different topics that you've mentioned. First of all, to say that before we drill into the cap, uh, it is important that that means that has been mentioned by many of you that we make sure that we are giving a direction, predictability and consistency. I would even dare to say synergy of all EU policies that are affecting farmers. And this is exactly what we've been doing together when presenting in February this year, the vision for Agriculture and Food, meaning that we've been looking at how we can make, uh, how we can work together and make our sector more attractive, competitive, resilient and working hand in hand with nature. And at that point in time, I'd like to thank this committee and in particular, Mr. Giacomo, for attending actively attending the conference on the vision that we organised last Thursday where we had over 6000 participants to engage and discuss and shape together the future of agriculture. And as you know in this vision, we are looking at the cap.”
Agricultural funding
- “We need also to make sure that the market is better, rewarding and recognizing the effort of the farmers and create new new sources of remuneration. And here, in particular, the work we are doing on carbon farming as well as on nature, credit might also play, um, might also be important to make sure that our farmers are better rewarded for the efforts they are doing in storing carbon and protecting nature and biodiversity. Um, when it comes to, um, also, um, investment, we are working with the European Investment Bank there. You know, that they have announced a large package, uh, to for, uh, grants and financial tools. €3 billion for the sector, in particular for young farmers, women. And that's very important that we further work on this as as it was mentioned, we need also to attract private funds to this sector. And let me mention also that attractiveness is at the core of our reflection. And in particular, we are looking at how we can work on some subjects, subjects on which so far we haven't done a great deal of work because this was considered as being a competence of the Member States, which is still true. But nevertheless, if we're talking about land and access to land, which is very important for young farmers, we need also to see how we can share best practices and also put much more transparency on the land market in the European Union.”
Agriculture (green) · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Agricultural funding
- “So these are some of the initiatives we are looking at when we look at the cap. Let me mention a couple of guiding principles and ideas on which we are exploring. First of all, and we've heard that very much today stability. So there is a need for change, but we need stability. So Commissioner is saying evolution more than a revolution. So we will build on the current architecture of the Cup and in particular on the Cup strategic plan, a performance based model which we think is what we need. While of course at the same time we will look for more simplicity, reducing excessive administrative burden and boost competitiveness as we have already started to do it. But of course, with the net, with the two packages that were published last year and this week. But of course, we will go further there. A learning from the experience of the last three years. The challenge, the challenge there is how do we simplify but remain a common policy with a high level of ambition in terms of environment and climate, and that needs to be looked at very carefully. The third element, which will be important. And you have mentioned that and the two presentations in particular. The first one was very much in line with that is how can we make sure that the cap is fairer and also more targeted to those most in need? This is clear in the vision that we need to make progress there.”
Agriculture (green) · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
- “So this is what we are exploring, how we can change our system while keeping some stability of the tools that are available to move from, you know, to many detailed conditions in the conditional current conditionality systems to more incentive based system. And my last point would be in relation with resilience and risk, which are extremely important as as it has been highlighted, two points here to say that we need, of course, to support farmers in adapting and transforming their farming systems to become more resilient to climate change, in particular water scarcity. Um, that is of course obvious, but we need also to improve the uptake of risk management tool. Develop the culture the culture of risk management in this sector. While the current Cap has helped us to improve, we have doubled the number of farmers that who have access to our risk management tool. It still remains low. It's still at the level of 14 one 4% of the farmers getting access to these tools. And that's why we are working here with the European Investment Bank also. So thank you very much for inviting us for the input that you've provided. We would like to continue the conversation with you. And we also stand ready to further engage with the the two, um, the two professors, since we find that this was extremely useful and interesting. Thank you very much again.”
EU policy on water management · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “Um, in terms of um, making the cap fairer and better targeting, which is, as you might remember, an objective that we have included in the vision for agriculture and food. Fairness is central. In our proposal, we introduced a new digressive area based income support targeting at farmers most in need. And here we give an indication, um, but member states can also complement that to who we think are the farmers most in need young farmers, women, small and medium sized farms, farms in areas under natural constraints. To start with, um, we have also attached a high importance to enhancing the attractiveness of the sector and fostering generation renewal, which, you know, is a challenge in Europe as well as in the rest of the world. So member states are encouraged to channel resources towards supporting young farmers to ensure the continuity and innovation within the agriculture sector. So, as a new um, payment, we introduced a comprehensive starter pack for young farmers and this will help newcomers to enter the profession with confidence and competence. At the same time, we also recognise the importance not just about money but also to wellbeing for farmers. So we have included also payment for on farm relief services, ensuring work life balance and addressing mental health considerations in terms of competitiveness and resilience. Um, we've kept sectoral interventions, um, which are which remain integral to the cap, but with some improvement. A mandatory national cofinancing now stands at 30%. Encouraging member States to invest in their agriculture sectors proactively.”
Cohesion and rural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And good afternoon to all of you. Um, thank you very much for the opportunity to present the Commission's proposal for the next cup, the Cup 2028 to 2030 for us. We all know that agriculture is not a mere economic activity. It's a strategic asset for Europe and in particular for Europe's security. Um, the Commission has worked on this proposal with on the basis of its vision for agriculture and food. The communication that we published in February this year that seeks to ensure a competitive, sustainable and resilient agriculture sector and, of course, long term food security. When we designed the proposal, we were guided by three main principles or objectives. First of all, to preserve the common character of this policy. So ensuring a coordinated approach across member states, delivering EU added value and impact. Second principle or objective a commitment to provide to European farmers a secured budget guaranteed until 2034 2034. And last but not least, make sure that we also learn from the current Common Agricultural Policy. We learn lessons so that we can, um, do we we give stability and predictability. We adjust and improve the toolbox that is supporting farmers and their income. When it comes to the budget, the cap rests on a strong financial foundation. We have designed a designated a minimum budget of at least 300 billion. So I call it a dedicated budget for the cap. Out of this, uh, 293.7 billion directly targets income support for farmers safeguarding their livelihoods. And in addition, €6.3 billion is allocated to the community safety net, which will serve as a buffer for agricultural markets during periods of volatility.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
- “So while we think we will continue to use area based payment in particular for direct payment as well as animal based payment for the coupled payment, we are exploring how we can use capping as well as aggressivity to make the cap fairer and targeted to those in need. Here, it's important to say that we have such a great diversity of agriculture and farming structure in Europe that this will be important also to give some flexibility to Member States. And of course, we are going also to consider how we can make the definition of active farmers, while of course here also giving flexibility to Member States. Most adequate to the need of the sector, in particular, the point that you mentioned in terms of generation renewal and focus it also on those who are producing our food. Second element, better reward farming practices and systems which are supporting, you know, environment and climate. This will be important. We already have a system where we combine a conditionality, the legislation, as well as the guide with, um, voluntary tools, instruments like the eco schemes as well as agro environment. The vision says clearly that we should move from conditions to incentives. So instead of having too much burden and requirements, we should incentivise farmers.”
Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding