Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting Workshop on the Multiannual Financial Framework and the Common Agricultural Policy for the period 2028-2034
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsElsa Régnier
Now I'm going to give you the example from Italy to show how the budget is broken down. Italy has a package of €81,200,000,000 from the general allocation. At least €31,000,000,000 has to go to CAP interventions, a few billion euros to fisheries, migration, and then there are 46 which can go to various different ideas. So €47,000,000 can be granted to CA from the beginning if Italy wants. Euros 27,000,000,000 would have to be spent on the less developed regions.
But this is not exclusive in terms of the CAP. Interventions. And then there is some flexibility. Member states have to set aside a certain amount to be spent as following. Under the Commission's proposal, one fifth can be requested in a crisis situation by the member states.
Threefive must be used for the midterm review or before the NIBP, or in exceptional circumstances. And one-fifth may be requested as of 2031 in case of crisis. And starting from June 2033, anything unprogrammed can be used for programming anything that the member states would choose.
And in negotiating the Microsoft agreement, the president Funda Lion proposed an amendment to Article 14 giving member states who would wish the possibility of using two thirds of the three fifths, those that’s the dotted red on the screen, which should be used to revise the NRP during the midterm review. For two thirds of those three fifths to finance interventions on the CAP from the start of the period, offer measures dedicated to rural areas.
So that would be about €45,000,000,000. I showed you the case of Italy there. What we can see is that the distribution and the CAP budget differ from member state to member state. But the degree of flexibility is different as well. That's shown in green, their ability, in other words, to top up the CAP budget. So it's not only the architecture of all of this that is evolving, it's also the type of intervention as well.
We've got two types in the CAP, those which are 100% financed under the EU budget. There are four of these.
We've. Got the degressive area-based income support, coupled income, and then all the other interventions have to be co-financed by member states. We've got two different cases there. Either they'll be financed from the pre-allocated budget, the €293,000,000,000, in other words, 30% minimum for member states, or the member state will choose to top it up from the budget.
So that was the green part on that bar chart I showed you. So you'd have a differentiated financial level according to the level of development of the region. To conclude, I'm now going to talk about crisis and risk management. Market crisis, sanitary crisis, and the climatic crisis are the three different distinctions made by the commission. For the market crisis and economic concept of sanitary crisis, they're suggesting European management, the Unity Safety Net, replacing the agricultural reserve.
That's €900,000,000 each year. For climate crisis and health crisis, we have national management, is left free up to member states to amend their NRPP in order to assist farmers through crisis support or support for investment.
And to do that, there are various different options. Either they have to reallocate funds within the NRPP, or they can use that flexibility amount I mentioned beforehand. Other words, the 25% is put on one side at the start of the financing period.
So what we're seeing here is a focus on crisis management at the expense of risk management, we'd seen quite a serious increase in the budget over the last years for crisis either at EU or national level.
Look at France. Where crisis management expenditure amounted to €2,000,000,000 in 2022, although there hasn't been an improvement in risk management, which is crucial, of course, in order to ensure good budgetary management.
So what we're doing in Idris is thinking how we can better use crisis management amounts for the prevention and mitigation of risks, and look at the agricultural reserve that could involve better conditionality of the crisis assistance.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much. Now, Mister Matthias, please take the floor for eight minutes.
Alan Mathews
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank the committee for the invitation to take part in this workshop this morning. I'm going to talk about the governance of the future cap. We're aware that the commission's MFF proposal includes a major restructuring of the budget framework, including the creation of a single European fund. And this proposal has given rise to, sorry, I just went, given rise to significant debate. And in this presentation, I focus on two issues. First, the implications of integrating agricultural policy into the single NRPP fund for the governance of the cap, and second, the implications of the increased flexibility given to member states for the common nature of the EU's agricultural policy.
Oops. The committee has made clear its preference to maintain a standalone two-pillar structure for the cap in the next MFF. If adopted, some governance issues would still require attention. Does it make sense to maintain the two pillar model? Or would there be benefits in moving towards a single unified cap fund? A two pillar cap structure will require separate allocation keys to allocate resources between member states.
These allocations traditionally form part of the European Council MFF conclusions. And while allocation rules for pillar one are broadly in place, no such rules exist for pillar two, and agreement will be difficult. Maintaining cap budget shares where overall NRPP allocations are redistributed may have unforeseen effects. Any allocation keys will also affect the future accession countries.
Issue no longer relevant in the commission proposal. The commission's preferred model may not be adopted, of course. Course. The discussion then turns to possible amendments to move the outcome closer to the committee's preferences.
One issue is to consolidate articles relevant to the cap currently in the fund regulation into the cap regulation, to improve legislative coherence. The commission president's letter of November 9 already proposed some reorganization.
The council presidency is considering whether additional articles might be added. The parliament might do so as well. At the national level, merging the funds will increase competition for cap resources, but also affect governance.
It is expected that member states will devote a separate CAP chapter in their NRPP plans, though this is not obligatory but could be made so. Agricultural stakeholders fear that this governance structure will allow greater influence of non-agricultural interests.
There are also upsides. Requiring ministries to work together may facilitate more coherent responses to national and territorial challenges. National governments have EU targets in areas such as climate, biodiversity, water, and soil.
Farmer action remains voluntary. Giving other ministries more influence on cap design supports these objectives. Outcomes will depend on member state capacity for good communication and coordination between ministries, which cannot be taken for granted.
Commission technical assistance could play an important role. A key element of the sorry about this. I seem to have some difficulty in getting my key element of the single fund proposal is to give member states more responsibility to design CAP interventions.
This flexibility is highly valued by member states, but it increases the likelihood that the CAHPS interventions in each member state will look very different, raising the question whether we will still have a common policy.
I underline that this issue arises whether the two-pillar structure is maintained or a single fund is implemented. The cap has never been uniformly implemented, and nor would this make sense. The question is whether flexibility has gone too far.
Some proposed changes increased flexibility, including removing ring fencing, requirements for young farmers and agri-environment climate schemes. There's also a change in the basis for calculating the ceiling for coupled payments, likely allowing increases in many member states.
But the proposal is not only about increasing flexibility, it makes a wider range of interventions mandatory. The proposed range for the new DABIS payment, this digressive area-based income support payment, is narrower than current differences across the schemes that it replaces.
The concern that the level playing field will be threatened by increased flex is, in my view, overstated. We can distinguish between income support schemes, so DABIS and the coupled payments, and other payments. The latter would support ecosystem services, risk management or investment, or are there payments to non farm groups? And they're generally not seen as distortive. The greater concern is differences in the DABUS and coupled payments. But as noted, the range for the average DABUS payment is narrower than at present and could be further narrowed if the committee wished.
The main threat to the level playing field is actually coupled payments, where the parliament itself has in fact called for an increase. The other concern is that member states would divert payment as it would divert spending.
Sorry. I'm still having problems with the clicker here, may divert spending from EU-wide challenges to national priorities. One response could be to reintroduce ring-fencing. Ring fencing creates a minimum degree of policy convergence.
The commission has indicated that it expects at least 6% of cap allocations for generational renewal. Environmental NGOs argue for ring-fencing for agri-environment climate schemes. The commission has also proposed a 10% earmarking of the NRP fund for rural targeting. This faces challenges in identifying relevant expenditures in rural areas.
A more workable option could be ring fencing for leader or integrated, territorial initiatives. Ring-fencing specifies what must be spent but not what must be achieved. It can lead to formal compliance, but without substantive impact. Also, does not account for different structural needs across member states.
An alternative is to rely on the CAPS steering mechanism, strengthened if necessary. The commission is required to adopt national recommendations identifying key challenges and guiding implementation. AgriFish ministers insist that these should be timely and non-binding.
And would prefer to remove the possibility of updates during the programming period. Commissioner Hansen has indicated they will be strategic and not include quantitative targets. The European Court of Auditors, in its opinion, calls for greater use of indicative targets, and clearer links between recommendations, funding allocation, and the level playing field. The committee wishes to avoid that flexibility results in an increasingly uncommon cap. Strengthening this steering mechanism would be a good place to start.
It will also be important to insist on the importance of rigorous evaluation of CAPP interventions, as envisaged under the performance regulation, also to enable proper parliamentary oversight. Thank you, chair.
Daniel Buda
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, mister Matthews. I'm now going to give the floor to the coordinators. Of the political group starting with the EPP.
Herbert Dorfmann
Yes. I have seen Dank with the Foxtel. Thank you very much indeed for these presentations.
It's very interesting. You were saying that here in the Parliament we have not been to date enthusiastic about this proposal. And I think that continues to be the case for the majority.
So on the first presentation, I'd like to know what your feeling is about. I think you're right in saying that this proposal, if you look at the entire NRPP plans, that it's going to be more flexible for member states.
But is it going to become more straightforward? Will there be less red tape? We've pointed out time and again that these things have to become more straightforward. And I don't see that happening here.
I think it's going to become more difficult, more for the member states. Yesterday, we were discussing the performance regulation. You didn't mention that now. But when you look at all of the criteria included in the performance, then in all sectors for member states, planning is becoming extremely complicated.
On the second presentation, I also agree that there are areas where flexibility is increasing, but areas where it's going to be limited or could become bigger in a less uniform way. But in our discussions with member states, those areas where there's going to be greater flexibility, and those where uniformity is going to be bigger.
On that, we don't have any agreement on capping, for example. That's one of the issues you mentioned. We need to take a look at that and see to what extent the member states would see greater uniformity being imposed upon them. And then one last point, quite correctly, you were talking about the internal distribution criteria, 10% for rural areas, for example, but we'd have to define first and foremost what exactly a rural area is. And because we don't have any clear definition as yet in European legislation.
So how do we work with these criteria for areas for which there is actually no definition? Thank you Dario Nordela for SND, please. Dario, s and d. Thank you very much indeed, and thank you to the two presenters for their presentations.
Cristina Maestre
Now, listening to you and looking at our work now that we were basically warming up, now in terms of this new model. I get the impression that the further we move forward, the more unknowns open up.
I don't know whether you have the same feeling as I have, but a lot of the novelty weaknesses linked with this new model. So I'd like to dig a little bit deeper and ask in global terms.
Whether you think this new model beyond the proposals and the changes we're bringing in? Is it going to be something really robust which will protect the farming sector at a time when there is increasing uncertainty throughout the agricultural sector, and the question next point is, what do we have to fall into line with the removal of the second pillar? Is it worth keeping both of them? As Mr. Matthews is asking, I think it's crucial because basically, the second pillar, we don't really know for roller systems.
Many other interventions as well are really important to agriculture. So obviously, the European Commission now is washing its hands in terms of management. It seems. And as Mr. Mathews was saying quite correctly, basically we're giving member states freedom every time we ask the European Commission.
They say, well, yes, there will be the possibility, but there's nothing mandatory. So, okay, yes, sexual interventions on national plans. Would have there'll be a degree of leeway there in terms of their own national situation, but leaving their hands completely free in management, I think, is giving rise to huge uncertainty and the possibility of unfair competition when we look at countries within the EU. Governance at the national level, I think, is also at risk.
There's going to be an awful lot of internal debate about how the funds will be allocated. And I think that's going to render many areas of work very vulnerable. Generational renewal, for example, is one thing, and other sectors as well.
So maybe you could tell us or suggest what we could do about that. Thank you.
For Patriots, Thomas Kubin, please.
Tomáš Kubín
Thank you, chair. I will speak in the Czech language.
I believe that our contributions and questions here will all be very similar. The Agricultural Committee is one of the few instances in the Czech in the European Parliament where everybody shares the views concerning the sector.
So I can totally agree with my two colleagues who spoke before me. We have been meeting many times now over the shape and form of the future agricultural policy. Every single time that the commissioner, politicians or officials hear that farmers really do not wish or very much question the change in the two pillar or the abandoning of the two pillar structure.
We come across the fact that there are many risks. There will be a competition among the regions. Inside individual member states, politicians will compete for money from the single fund. Also, renationalization is being raised.
So the common agricultural policy is simply crumbling. And I would like to thank Mr. Matthews for the fact that he mentioned whether there will even still continue to be a single common agricultural policy. Will it continue to exist? No.
There'll be competition between housing and agriculture and other sectors. And let us be aware that those who represent farming have a very difficult role in every member state. Because agriculture does not necessarily have a beautiful image or reputation, and it's not an easy job to fight for our farmers.
Here in this committee, there are people who themselves are farmers. Please all of you also, and the commission, please go and listen to our farmers, and also you experts, go listen to them.
My question to you would be, can you really envisage that the national plans can function in a way that the farming sector won't be left behind? And the money won't be siphoned away from agriculture.
Daniel Buda
Do you believe that the limits that you mentioned here are sufficient? For the CR, Mr. Rysen, please.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you to the guest speakers for excellent contributions providing information on the budgetary aspects of the proposals we have before us. Doctor. I'd like to focus on having a level playing field course, there are concerns about this level playing field being slanted.
That the whole budget becoming too big, I haven't been convinced that this won't happen. I think that a level playing field is under immense pressure. You look at the proposals that are on the table.
If we look at the difference in level of support that allowed through the commission, if you look at basic provision, and then the possibilities within that. And then if you look at the possibilities that the member states have at their discretion, to increase the budget of coupling with the NRPP, for example, you can see very clearly that there are a lot of options available and that can lead to huge differences and disparities in terms of the monies being spent in different areas by member states.
So would it not be better to decouple the CAP from the NRPP? Yesterday, we saw a very clear proposal from the economic and social committee along these lines that really said to us that a decoupling from the NLPP was the best idea.
When it comes to the governance mechanisms that Mister Matthews was talking about in the last phrase, you were saying that you see that there is a role there for the European Parliament. I'd be interested in knowing how he views that because I'm a bit worried that in looking at all the plans of the member states, it's gonna be difficult for the parliament to have direct influence on that because it's to be the commission who'd be rubber-stamping these. And so the democratic scrutiny aspect in the implementation of the CAP will be undermined.
I'd like to know how you see the role of the EP in monitoring the level of ambition and also maintaining that level playing field.
Charles Goerens
Thank you very much, Chair. Well, I hope that this discussion we're having today will help us thrash out some clarity. We don't want to reach premature opinions. We need to look at clarifying things, I think. So maybe you can answer the following questions to clarify this.
Will the next CAP constitute an important step towards renationalization? Will the next CAP be more bureaucratic or more simple? Will the CAP be resilient? Will it still be practicable? Bearing in mind a huge agricultural power such as Ukraine joining the EU. And the fourth important question, the question that's begged when it comes to scrutiny.
Are we prepared to work with the commission and the national budgetary control committees with the European Parliament at a parliamentary level to ensure scrutiny? The only basis we have to discuss this is the commission's own proposal.
And the presentations in qualitative terms we heard today were very good. And also the one we heard from the economic and social committee yesterday, we'll have a chance to discuss this at greater length.
But as the committee, I think we need to home in on what method we want to apply. We don't know what the member states are gonna propose in their plans, so let's invite them. Invite them to the committee. So that they can tell us what they intend to do.
Surely, that should be some people who come and tell us. So we can see whether it is a decisive step towards re-nationalization. And the versus what we think, and what the commission thinks.
The proposals I put forward a few weeks ago were to carry out some simulations. We still have time now to clear up the lack of clarity. To bring some precision. And I think it's absolutely essential to get that clarity. Before, we need to take our definitive decision on this issue.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Tilly Metz
I must say after this presentation, even if I really try to concentrate, it really shows, and I agree with my colleague from EPP, Peter. He's not going into the direction of more simplification. And less simplification makes it also more difficult to have transparency and to have coherence if the money really goes to where we want.
So that is my first remark or question. Secondly, if climate action, action on the environment is more on a voluntary basis, I wonder how we are going to be competitive if our soil and our water is not protected, that is not an element of competitive. We are not going competitive with floats and droughts.
And then my second search remark is, is it still a common agricultural policy? There were no impact indicators. So how do we check the coherence? So yes, and how you said in your presentation, the second presentation, said, yes, there is the impact on Leven Playing Field is overstated.
But what about solidarity in Europe in the common agricultural policy? It's also an element I'm missing. And then another remark that was made in the presentation is the impact of stakeholders that are not from the agri sector. Would you hear what you meant exactly by that? And then last but not least, if we merge in the crisis, the sanitary and the climate crisis and also merging animal welfare and animal health, which is not the same thing, again, there, I wonder how we are going really to attribute the money where it should really be spent.
In order to fight also the climate crisis. So I see more and more questions rising up, and I kinda totally agree that we need clarification before really starting to work. And I wonder also how the member state will manage if we think of the first presentation, I mean, it's really not easy also for the member state to get along here and define their way.
Thank you very much.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much for your interest in presentations on what is a massively important topic, and the idea that we somehow integrate all these funds so we can get a better win for rural areas. Sounds like a good idea, but to me, CAP was already integrated into rural areas.
I've said it a million times, I keep saying it at this committee, I'm not a farmer, I've never lived on a farm, but my father would have had to emigrate but for the Common Agricultural Policy Fund because he would have got no money off farmers in the area to put in windows, doors, help them to build sheds, etcetera.
So when we talk about integrating the cap, the cap in its current form, and people like to criticize it, I'd like some people to actually read something before they criticize it.
Was putting money into every sector in rural Ireland and rural areas already in Europe. To me, the big issue here is, and obviously, this proposal from the commission could be better, but ultimately, the big issue here is the amount of money that is available. And while pillar two to me would be important, we didn't have pillar two for forty years.
We did have them for the last 20 years. It would to me be good if we'd retain it, but ultimately, it's about the amount of money. And if we look at some of the areas in the new cap proposals, I think there is potential for a fairer cap. I heard the EESC, the person who came in for the EESC yesterday, saying that they had a problem with aggressive payments. To me, progressive payments are a good idea, and okay, it will affect some people. On payments and people will get less, but the people who are getting more have always had to do with less, so it's just evening it up. And if there was more money in the pot, people losing money wouldn't be a problem.
You mentioned the fact that coupling would lead to an uneven playing field. I actually think it possibly could. But what other tools could be used to support this vulnerable sector? That will be better than a couple payments? And also on the issue of who is in the greatest need.
I mean this is how long a piece of string on steroids here. Who is in the greatest need? Who will decide that? To me, who is in the greatest need are small scale farmers who put a lot of money back into the local economy, provide an awful lot of services that are required. To me, those are the ones who are in the greatest need.
Who is in the greatest need? Do we decide that? That's the question, really, I have.
Ivan David
Provided. For quite an extensive statement, and I will raise the most important ones.
When it comes to area payments, we have to always link it to real productivity, not to ownership or formal ownership or holding. And what we want here is for member states to keep the possibility to always link it to productivity. Especially when it comes to voluntary support for productivity, with special care for special commodities. This approach is in line with subsidiarity, in line with the need to look at the specific needs of the area of the market. Where the current system will be maintained, we have to always look at the productive use of the land.
No payments for anything else than productivity. There will be some crops that need strategic help, such as fruits and vegetables. And we have special minimum requirements. Then we have some other crops. And there, we think that non-productive green conditionality shouldn't apply. Instead of that, we should always condition support on unit payments.
There, we will have a clear link between productivity and payments. We also have to look at convergence. Especially for new member states. And we have to always look at the treaty.
The condition was to make everything even for all member states by 2014, and that didn't happen. We still have a model from 1980 and 24. And that way is not that model has not even been considered.
And we think we have to decouple funds. No reduction, no nonproductive requirements arising from the green deal. No other production, and no capping of payments based on the size of the farm.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair, and thank you to both of our speakers for an unlikely and a concise summary of what's going on amidst all the fog. Your presentation underlines, I think, a very uncomfortable truth. For us in this room.
The commission's proposals risk just widening the gap between ambition and reality in terms of EU agricultural policy. The camp cannot be expected to carry evermore responsibilities with an even tighter. People watching in this morning are waiting for the answer.
Are we going to make up the 24% loss in our single farm payment? That's a basic question. Where is it gonna come from? And it seems to me the answers are far from clear.
If the 2028 to 34 m f f does not provide sufficient force resources, the burden will simply be pushed on to member states to hire co-financing expectations and more uneven implementation. I agree with my colleague here beside me.
Maybe we should hear from the member states. How much money will they bring to the table? In their NRPP? We will know. Some member states will bring none. A common policy.
How can we have a common policy in those circumstances? So I think our overall co-funding expectations are very important. And I think it would weaken the common nature of the common agriculture policy itself. So the time of growing uncertainty and volatility and pressure on farm incomes, I think this is exactly the wrong direction.
Europe cannot say agriculture is strategic. The end of the day. I asked one question to the panel. Is it not just renationalization? That's what's going on here. Of the fund.
Thank you.
Next speaker, Mr. Panalep, please.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you very much. Thank you to our guests who've been very clear on what we already knew. This commission proposal really constitutes a rupture in the CAP in Europe. The end of the CAP budget is being considered untouchable. And the start of a number of concerns.
I have a number of questions. First of all, you said that this project will be unbalanced because of the social and public funding aspects. Is it not high time to change the single market rules to correct that? My second question concerns a subject that nobody raises or very rarely.
How do you reconcile this future CAP, a possible joining of Ukraine, and that's what the commission wants. What impact will the accession of Ukraine have on this new CFP? And finally, picking up on what's already been said, can we still talk about a common agricultural policy tomorrow?
Valérie Deloge
Thank you, Miss Rainier. For focusing on our future CAP. 27 member states, 27 people talking hot air, and not actually producing anything. We have the law and the spirit of the law, but here, the new CAP is set aside the new spirit of the CAP.
So how do you think we can work this out? And how can we understand what is being proposed? Because there can be genuine problems with the future prospects of support that could be proffered.
I get the impression that this new CAP is not gonna work. It's gonna run to ground. And our farmers will suffer. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Selini Mar.
Merci, président.
Céline Imart
Merci, thank you very much, chair. Thank you to the experts for their view on this new CAP. The commission talks about simplification, but it's less legible than ever. A simplification that's actually making things more complicated.
Need to sort this out because our farmer's gonna end up footing the bill. In many ways. Mr. Matthews, who talks about the role of the commission in governing this. We need to clear up what this will involve.
Because the commission is creating more fragmentation on the national side, more centralized controls from the European side at the same time. In other words, we're unraveling on the one hand and stitching back together on the other, they claim.
So what are the tools that you can identify to actually reinstate some predictability for farmers and reassure us that the CAP will be a tool to bolster their position in the food supply chains?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Jessica Van Loven, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you also to the speakers for joining us today. I have questions for both of you. So Ms. Reginee, in your presentation, it was clear that there's a large difference between allocation of cap money between member states, but also the free space that they have in the NRPP top-up cap budget. And I wonder how you think this is going to affect the level playing field. But what I also would like to ask you is, we've changed the rules on how we spend cap money.
But we have not changed the rules on how we allocate the cap budget to the different member states. So if food security is at the heart of our CABP, why don't we allocate CABP money based upon productivity? And why don't we allocate more money to member states that actually contribute more to our food production? Mister Matthews, you said that you think it's gonna be good that ministries will cooperate together since there is not the single cap fund, but just the one single fund going to the member state.
However, how do you feel that it's no longer the agricultural minister that is deciding about the cut money, but it's also the Department of Financial Affairs in the different member states, because I do see a problem arising there.
Thank you very much.
Christine Singer
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you for those presentations and your valuable advice, insight, and perspectives. Ladies and gentlemen, we're shifting the conflicts from Brussels to our capitals. Commission calls it flexibility, being practical, this quickly becomes I'm alright, Jack, looking after yourself.
So the CAP is going to be dependent on will in our member states because of the NRPPs, because that is where it will be decided whether funds will go to kindergartens or to agriculture.
And turning this to an extreme, we say this cannot be in our interest. We're not talking about a common set of priorities at the European level. But how we're going to moderate different conflicts about how the national allocation will be carried out. And we'll be talking about further lack of fair competition rules in the single market.
So to Mister Matthews, are the governance mechanisms that have been proposed strong enough to make sure that the common aspect of the agricultural policy is ensured? My question to the commission is this really a question of simplification, or are you just shifting complexity from one place to another in political responsibility to a different level quite simply? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Maria Grapini, for us, Sandeep.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for these presentations. It was very important for us to hear these presentations. And I think our guests know very well the agri committee's positions.
We level criticism at the commission's proposal. We will continue to criticize it. And so I'd like to put a question to both of you. Given us a presentation, but we haven't seen the conclusions.
What are your conclusions? Is this the right approach to CAP? We've had the CAP since 1962. Management terms, if you give up on applying a method, you look at the impact of that decision and what the advantages are of the new methods that are being adopted.
Without political pressure, because you don't have that pressure on you. Could you tell us why it is better to go in this new direction, this blended budgetary direction, because I don't think we'll have a common agricultural policy at the end of it.
Agriculture is security. You can have overproduction of certain products, and a shortage, on the other hand. We don't have a common policy in the European Union anymore. So that's my question.
Is this a good idea to proceed in this way or not? What are your lines of reasoning? Because I'm far from convinced of the commission's proposal. I don't think there's much good in it.
Benoit Cassart
For running the problem.
Of all the speeches and texts on the new common agricultural policy, is that we get the impression that we are hearing that everything's gonna be implemented and it's opposite. We talk about simplification, and yet complexity is increased because of renationalization.
And steering committees and new governance structures. We have bolstering of negotiating power of the farmers themselves, yet at the same time, opening new markets with larger and larger agreements on the international trade stage, a crisis fund that is being set up, which shows that there's a destabilization of the market. We have a lack of a level playing field because of renationalization and yet common rules.
We're talking about an increase in administrative red tape obligation to have written contracts. And I think at some stage, the farmers will know that you can't have your cake and eat it.
What we need today is to have clear political decisions taken. We need to have coherence in those decisions, predictability. And given that, I support Shal Gurren's proposal, my friend, to invite the member states to give us a heads-up on what they intend to do. So that we have an idea that there is joined up thinking between the member states.
Thank you.
Nina Carberry
Thank you, and thank you to speakers for joining us today and for your presentations. The proposal, the commission has moved away from the traditional cap payments structure. As you have both mentioned, dramatically reducing the traditional ring-fencing specific rural development measures. By removing the strict ring-fencing of CAAP Pillar two for schemes like LEADER, for farm modernization, and replacing it with a 10% rural target in NRPPs. The commission has gained flexibility but lost accountability.
Can you speak a little more about, and in your opinion, how enforceable this 10% rural target actually is? Can we realistically track this spending across member states? And lastly, on the actual size of the cap, how do you see the NRPP structure working across Ireland? And are Ireland particularly exposed to reduced funding because of our high cap dependency but limited spare funding?
Our farmers depend on CAP payments. They shouldn't have to compete with funding for housing, legal affairs, or infrastructure across departments. Influence is very concerning.
Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Thank you. Thank you very much to all the colleagues who've taken the floor. Before giving the floor back to our guests. I'd also like to just spend a few words on the question of predictability for the agricultural sector.
Over and beyond. The budgetary sector. Obviously, money is important, but what is more important is the capacity to be able to predict and anticipate.
Of. Course, we need to see what the commission's proposing, but we need to know where the money is going to come from. Miss Rainier, you said the new model is not problematic.
But the money coming to the CAP is that money that's gonna help people develop their farms? Or is that going to become impossible? Is it gonna be difficult to find that sort of budget? Moreover, we're talking about what we can do to stimulate young people to get involved in agriculture. How can we get these people involved if they don't know where they're gonna get money to develop their holdings? Regardless of whether you're left-wing, right-wing, or in the center.
I think this committee, we've been fairly unanimous in putting the question mark there. Some colleagues have asked to invite the member states to give them clarity, give us clarity on what they're gonna do and how much money. But you know, governments come and go. We don't know what the view of the member states will be.
The person speaking today might not be in power. It won't be the same minister. Obviously, we need to work with the member states. We need to have some guidelines from the Commission.
Ms. Grapini mentioned something extremely important. We talk about food security. If we don't have that, it is extremely worrying.
For five minutes.
Elsa Régnier
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for all those questions. Maybe I can just come on to the issue of the common nature of the Common Agricultural Policy. As Alan Matias has already said, common CAP has had a degree of flexibility.
It's not perfect. It's not on a pedestal. I think in the commission, they're looking at this. What sort of safeguards need to be put in place? A lot of the common aspects of the future ambition is being implemented through the CAPP national recommendations. There is an opportunity or a risk that that will be changed, that it'd be weakened or watered down. The other issue is what other safeguards can be put in place.
Looking at the agro-environmental climate schemes, and the 35% going to the second pillar, the ring fencing that will be removed in the commission's proposals. Also a possibility to toy with the different levels of co-financing. In the current CAP, the co-financing rate changes according to the interventions. There's a high level of funding from the budget from Europe when it's viewed as more useful.
I don't know if that's the right word. But where it links in to other aspects, and that would give a high level of co-funds financing. What's the role of the EP in looking at the NRPPs? Well, there's also the question of the resilience of the CAP to future shocks.
Resilience of CAP accession of Ukraine. I think the accession of Ukraine is very difficult to answer, that question, because there are so many moving parts there. And negotiation accessions are still under way. We don't know what the conditions will be for enlargement. We don't know then how the CAP will be able to take on board that new country.
On the long term resilience of the CAP, also been mentioned in some of the questions in bolstering our food supply chains. And the current context, of course, that's important. Going to be talking later about the Straits of Hormuz being blocked. And the impacts that has.
How do we bolster our autonomy on that front for food production, and how to cope with market crisis shocks. With interruptions of supplies that could be possible. Which puts more pressure on the European agricultural system, dependence on manures, for example, fertilizers, but also imported protein to feed European livestock.
So how can we diversify the agricultural model, and how can we introduce more circularity? There's also a question that was raised about a distortion between member states. Because not all member states have the same envelope, but that's the case today. Many member states don't have the same level of funding. That envelope is based on the surface area of their holdings.
There's nothing new there. Do we need to allocate more money to the member states who produce more? Well, I think that would run counter to the principle of solidarity in the CFE and would weaken a little more the resilience of the food system, because there's a risk of having a concentration of certain production zones, very intensive in certain countries, which would undermine the resilience of the agri-food system overall.
What we need is more diversification and support for those who are struggling to produce today. On the question of some simplification, it's true that the commission's proposal does bring a level of complexity not necessarily for the farmers, but for the member states in establishing their national or regional partnership plans. The administrative powers which differ between member states. So we have to see how that'd be implemented.
We talked about getting rid of the COP. I don't think the COP is going to be got rid of. The COP will still have ring-fenced monies, billions of euros, that will go to that and rules that apply to it and it alone. Now we need to make sure safeguards are put in place. Of course, we'll need to see how this pans out.
Given the negotiations both in parliament and the council, but also when the NRPP are produced and worked out. There's a lot of flexibility that is offered to the member states, as has been mentioned.
Alan Mathews
Thank the members for the concerns that have been raised. Clearly, the budget is crucial. And I guess you are considering what might be the options. The idea of singling out the two pillar cap, keeping decoupling that from the NRPP. Then have a single cap budget, but it's not necessarily the case that you would maintain even the level of minimum ring fencing for that single budget that is there in the current proposal.
The current proposal assumes that the commission MFF budget as a whole, almost 2,000,000,000,000, will be accepted. And yet I see no appetite amongst member states to increase own resources. There is a real possibility that we will end up with a smaller MF than what the commission has proposed. And if the cap alone could be indeed very vulnerable.
My proposal that these for you to think about is that I see a very defensive position when it comes to the priority that agriculture and rural development might get at the national level.
My argument is that there are national targets that other ministries have, the climate ministry, the environment ministry, the ministry for the nature restoration law and so on, which require farmers to undertake certain actions. They actually have an interest also in seeing a larger cap budget. So it's not necessarily a case that these other ministries will be antagonistic to agriculture. I could see potential synergies, and that's something perhaps to keep in mind.
Many people have raised the issue of renationalization. And I would just point out that this is also a debate which you had in this committee with the current cap reform.
Currently, the difference between the level of payment per hectare of potentially eligible area varies from €630 per hectare in Greece to €273 per hectare in Latvia. So we don't have a uniform cap at the moment. And that's the context in which we need to consider whether, in fact, the flexibilities would be increased or possibly even decreased.
Remember that the commission is proposing to make a lot more interventions mandatory. In the current cap. That's something which you may well want to consider. But it highlights that flexibility can operate both ways.
My point was that where member states add to the cap budget, for example, for agri-environment climate measures, that's not really an issue which is going to give rise to concern amongst farmers in other member states in terms of distorting the level playing field. In fact, if anything, agri environment measures in terms of encouraging farmers to change to organic or to agroecological practices actually reduce the level of production, reduce the level of competition that other farmers would face. So it's really these key income support payments, the DABUS payment, and the couple payments, where I would see the potential for a distortion of the level playing field.
And as I've said, for the DABUS payment, actually, the commission proposal very slightly narrows the range that is there at the moment. And I do worry about the relaxation of couple payments, despite what Mister Flanagan says about the need to protect vulnerable sectors.
And just three short points. On rural development, targeting. I do agree that it seems extremely difficult to try to isolate or identify payments which are specifically dedicated to rural areas. If you build a road between a major city and a rural area, is that rural spending, or is that of benefit to the city? And this is why in my intervention, I suggested that you could think maybe of a smaller ring fencing, but a more narrowly focused on interventions which we know benefit rural areas.
So I'm thinking of the leader intervention or integrated territorial initiatives. So that's a possible alternative to this idea of a broad 10% target dedicated to rural areas, which I think will be very difficult to monitor.
On the democratic scrutiny of the parliament, which I really think is a really important issue, my suggestion here is that this is where the monitoring and evaluation framework for the CAP. So basically, the member states will have their CAP plans approved as part of the overall national plan. But what is delivered from those plans? This is where the monitoring and evaluation is crucially important. And this is where the parliament will have the opportunity, if it's properly done, to review how member states are using the European money that has been allocated to them. So I would put the emphasis on the monitoring and evaluation in terms of democratic scrutiny.
In terms of Ukraine, just to add to what Elsa has said, my view is that the commission proposal actually removes Ukraine as an issue for agricultural policy because, essentially, under this large single fund, there is a single allocation formula. Any new exceeding member would be entitled to its share of the overall, NRP fund based on that allocation formula, which you all know is in Annex one of the fund regulation. It would then be up to those member states, including the existing member states, to decide how much of that to allocate to agriculture. There would be a ring-fenced amount, of course. But it would not be, it would not be a separate issue. Whereas if you opt for the two pillar model, where you have the allocation formula presumably as is currently in place, then indeed, a large exceeding country like Ukraine would be entitled to direct payments per hectare, and that could indeed create problems for the cap. So that would be my view on Ukraine.
Daniel Buda
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now next speaker for DG Agri. Mister Jis Shiltius. Please take the floor.
Gijs Schilthuis
Thank you very much, chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for being able to be part of this interesting workshop with very pertinent contributions of your two invited experts.
I would like to respond mainly to the theme of the common policy, which was questioned, challenged, supported in the exchange this morning. But before starting on that, I think it's important to recall the budgetary proposal, as was said by several of you, the budget is key. You all know that we have come with a budget proposal of €293000000000 for the seven years. Plus a doubling of the crisis reserve in the Unity Safety Net and the two letters of President van der Leyen, which add, in a way, you could say, €90,000,000,000 to the original amount.
In other words, a very significant amount for agriculture that the commission has put on the table. And indeed, if you think about the need for a common policy, that delivers on the treaty objectives, income, productivity, affordable food for consumers, Thinking about that, obviously, a budget plays an important role. For agriculture, but also for the wider challenges of the Union.
As I recalled, during your exchange yesterday with Economic and Social Committee, the commission's proposal for agriculture is part of this wider fund and part of the new approach in the MFF to tackle the challenges of the union in terms of competitiveness, strategic autonomy, innovation, sustainability. So, I think we really need to make sure that we see agriculture really as part of the strategic response of the union to these wider challenges. And that is why as part of the NRP fund, we have agriculture with a ring-fenced amount to ensure it's a very strong place. We have the common objectives of the agricultural policy right there in terms of food security, farm income, generational renewal, rural development, and so on. We have common tools. And let's face it, the policy continuity is really there.
We have the market policy, the common market organization. Common rules in the internal market for agriculture, and a subsidy. The subsidy policy we are discussing today: subsidy for farmers, subsidy for farm income, we continue subsidies for sustainability of agriculture through eco schemes, agri-environment payments, subsidies for investment, innovation in agriculture for rural areas, generational renewal. All these different important objectives of agricultural policy are reflected in the subsidy proposal as we have put it on the table as part of the 2028-2034 MFF. And these tools are common. I think the debate this morning was very interesting because there was, indeed, a focus on what is necessary to have a common policy, what provisions do we need. Are the ones today is that the balance we need to have? Or do we need to add provisions? Do we need to have more rules at European level? Or do we need to provide more flexibility to Member States while keeping the common policy. And the commission has really chosen to identify in a number of areas, possibilities for further simplification while maintaining the common policy, for example, in the form of the obligatory nature of many interventions.
So member states have to plan these interventions in the form of the range for the income support, which was mentioned by Professor Matthews, in the form of the rules on degresivity and capping. All this are EU level provisions that provide the context and the for member states to program the measures and provide the common nature of the policy.
Of course, we also have the ring fencing. We have the spending targets. Both for the environment, as part of the NRP, and for the rural areas. We have said we want to advise member states that they should spend at least 6% on young farmers for generational renewal. Through our recommendations.
We have, I think, several of you mentioned also environmental sustainability. We have environmental priorities. Areas. We have farm stewardship rules, which is a continuation. But also a simplification of today's conditionality.
We are working on recommendations for member states, also to guide member states towards what we consider the important objectives to tackle. And finally, if you allow me, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to also underline the common nature of the rules on management audit control. Which are continuing. In fact, we are working with member states very much on going through that because that is where we want to see continuity.
First of all, because the current system is successful. But also because it's important for the administrative burden of member states. That means maintenance of the IAQ system, maintenance of paying agencies within the new framework.
So with that, I hope I have been able to underline that what we have put on the table is a common policy that addresses the common strategic challenges of the Union.
And we look forward to working with this committee in dialogue during the legislative work that you are undertaking. Thank you very much.
Daniel Buda
I'd.
Like to thank our two experts as well. It's very important.
That we understand that this discussion, which is talking about the future of the CAP, is actually a discussion which addresses food security. In the future. And we could emphasize that aspect even more.
The debate we're having right now is talking about the support agricultural policy, but it's also support for consumers because they're the final end of this chain. It's very difficult to say to a young farmer today.
Well, you're going to earn a lot less than someone in any other sector. If you make this choice. So it would have been a different matter if you had received fair compensation, because that's really the point.
What can you demand of people who are standing out there in the field in wind, and hail, and bad weather, producing food for us, taking on these burdens, simply increasing the red tape without giving them the necessary resources to manage this task. So, it's very important to understand that farmers have to be supported in order to continue to ensure our food security, our food supply.
So we'll turn to the Commission and say, we want to make sure that you understand what we've understood here today. Because all of these decisions impact farmers, their reality, and it's important that we support food security.
Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Now. We're going to have a commission presentation on the EU mission for a soil deal for Europe. And so, healthy soils are essential for agricultural production. And in the long term, we use the farmland. And it's also important for water management, and it's going to help agriculture to address difficult situations, weather conditions, and this is something that we address here in the committee.
No. This mission is to ensure healthy soils throughout the EU by using different kinds of innovative measures. So it's important to understand how this could lead to long term solutions for farmers and other stakeholders, and how it links up to other existing EU policies.
And we look forward to hearing from the commission on these main elements and what's going to happen next. So I will now give the floor to Mr. Kagafano. Ten minutes, please.
Diego Canga Fano
Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for inviting the commission to present the EU's sole mission.
My name is Leroy Kangafano. I am acting deputy director general, but also the mission's soil manager. Let me move to the next slide. Healthy soils are the basis for farming today and tomorrow. I hope you all agree with that.
It's a statement. The vision from agriculture and food. Because soil is not just another policy topic. It is the very foundation of our agriculture and our food systems. Your committee knows that's better than anyone. Soil sustains biodiversity, strengthens our resilience to climate change, and underpins our water systems. It shapes our landscapes, preserves our cultural heritage, and ultimately supports our economy and prosperity.
In short, without healthy soils, there is no sustainable agriculture, and no food security. And yet, according to estimates from the European Commission, more than 60% of soils in the European Union are at risk or degraded.
Extreme weather events are aggravating the situation. Soil is fragile and a finite resource. And once degraded, it takes decades to recover. And with unhealthy, infertile soils, farmers are more expected to be exposed, sorry, to the impact of geopolitical instability on fertilizers, for example. Farmland accounts for 40% of land in the European Union, and farmers are the guardians of the soil, and they have cared for it for centuries.
So the maintenance and regeneration of soil health is a priority for the farming sector and for the Commission. For that reason, the common agricultural policy allocates more than 40,000,000,000 to improve soil quality. And soil health is a key priority for environmental and climate change in the future MFF. At the same time, we must recognize a fundamental truth: soil health is local. There is no one size fits all solution. That's precisely why your policies must empower action not only at the European Union but also at regional and local level.
The next slide, I present what is the emission of soil. Soil sits at the heart of many of European policies, from the usual strategy to common agricultural policy, from nature restoration to our carbon farming, water resilience, and so on.
But beyond policies, soil health is a fundamental societal challenge. It directly affects the competitiveness of our agriculture, the resilience of our food systems, and the sustainability of how we manage our land. And that's precisely why it requires a dedicated, ambitious tool.
That's where European missions come in. Missions represent a new way of working in European research and innovation. They are designated to tackle a major set of challenges and to deliver results by 2030.
And soil is one of the five such challenges identified at European level, together with cancer, clean water, climate adaptation, and sustainable cities. This underlines how just critical soil health is for Europe's future.
The mission soil is backed by an investment of around 812,000,000 because our interpreter, it's very difficult. It's been around three clear and ambitious objectives. First, to raise awareness about soil and its health. Second, to provide new knowledge and better practices. And third, to ensure a high uptake of sustainability soil management practices at the local level.
But to succeed, we need you, MEPs. We need your support. Your support is essential to bring this mission to life in your regions. To engage stakeholders, and to turn ambition into real change on the ground.
Next slide, please. So the main tool of the mission is a network of 100 living labs. In this slide, you can see the first 45 Mission Soil Living Labs are up and running, and 80% are on agricultural land. So pay attention to this slide because I will come up later on this one. The goal of the living labs is to take research out of laboratories and to bring it into the farms to test and adapt solutions for improving soil health in real conditions, with due consideration to the economic viability of the solutions.
Looking ahead, our ambition is greater. By the end of the implementation of the mission soil, we aim to involve more than 1,000 sites across Europe. This means over 1,000 farms and locations where farmers work together hand-in-hand.
Next slide, some concrete examples. For instance, the five living labs working on carbon farming in Portugal, Spain, Greece, France, and Italy. So the living labs use cascade funding, small grants, for example, €5,000 per year, involve farmers in research without going into the complexity of large horizon projects.
Farmers can apply to a simple course, the mother tongue with local support. This way, many farmers are participating in new, wide research. On the next slide, the president will be happy because we quote one example in Romania. We quote the black soy leaving lab Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, led by the University of Klutz Tapoca, which sorry for my pronunciation. With 21 experimental sites covering 10,000 hectares.
Also quote a German example of a living lab with 12 experimental cities. We also quote a Polish example in Grochet, focus on apple orchards and covers a lot of hectares, more than 100,000, and is part of a bigger project with five living labs focusing on permanent crops like vineyards, olive groves, chestnuts, hazelnuts, and so on.
So in addition to the first 45 living labs, and that's what is important for you, other 50 projects should come pretty soon. In total, including the living labs, the mission SOLE has already implemented €469,000,000 with 63 grants to date, counting more than 1,200 participants.
On the next slide, I mentioned the support of the common agricultural policies, as said before, more than 40,000,000,000 so far. And the mission sold is clearly supporting this effort. It has been considered in 18 national strategic plans to better connect research and innovation with implementation on the ground. For example, the results of the living labs are expected to be replicated and scaled up by many EIP agrooperational group funds.
So, let me now turn to the next slide because that's more important for you. So what do we expect from you, MEPs? So first of all, the mission now is mature. And projects are starting to deliver results.
We are also at the threshold of the next multi-hour financial framework. And what we want from Youth Festival is that you help us to put soil health firmly on local and regional policy agendas.
Second, we are going to spend money, €370,000,000 we are going to spend in the next two years. The calls are open now. We open in February. They are going to be called in September.
And we're going to select 50 new living labs, and you see in all around Europe, in all the regions, and we want you please to help us to disseminate this information in your local authorities, in your regional authorities to have a better repetition of living labs. The third thing we would request from you, honorable members, is that we want living labs to be local hubs with other networks, and you can also play a crucial role in your regions. You can participate in local events organized by living labs and other mission projects, you can participate in on-site meetings and field visits with farmers and rural actors, and promote workshops.
And also, very important for us, you can also sign the Mission Soil Manifesto to raise awareness and encourage others to sign. By the way, some of you members of the parliament are already signatories of the manifesto, which is a nonbinding document, but a very powerful communication tool with more than 3,500 signatories including from UNESCO and some other important organizations.
If I go to the next slide, I am talking about individual MEPs. Let me talk about Comagri. We would kindly invite you to take part in some mission soil events. You have one of your colleagues there who has participated in the past, Mr. Berhuber. So we are organizing a mission soil week, in Ireland, with the Irish presidency, and we would like to have more MEPs.
It will be on the seventeenth and 18 November, and we will be delighted to have more MEPs. I also mentioned that the mission aims at mobilizing more funding and investments, and the first Mission Sole Investment Forum will take place here in Brussels on June 30. Again, it's an opportunity, and we also invite MEPs to join us if you want. It will be a great pleasure for us. And we have more than 70 ongoing projects, and we organize a wide range of events from local workshops and high-level conferences.
For example, we're organizing an event in Portugal on September 7. Again, a lot of activities, and we would like MEPs, please, please help us in disseminating the soil emission.
Let me conclude with a very important communication message. For example, some of the events we do are seen by 9,000,000 people. So there is a very important mission to all the communities.
So, as I'm sure that honorable members will be interested. Again, me and my team we are happy to reply to your questions, and we came here just to gather your support to enhance soil emission.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My apologies to the interpretation being a bit quick.
Daniel Buda
You. Very much. Now for the speakers for the coordinators, Mister Dorfan, please.
Yeah.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you very much indeed for this presentation. Protecting soil clearly is a crucial issue because soil can't be simply reproduced from one day to the next. Obviously, it's a very long process that takes thousands of years. And once soil is gone, it's gone.
I have a few questions. What are we talking about here? We're talking about agricultural soils. What are soils? Is it for land use for agriculture, for forests, for towns, whatever?
We've heard figures, 60% of our soils in Europe are unhealthy. So then I wonder if we're talking about soils used for forests, 40% of the soils in Europe are covered by forests. So how can that be unhealthy? What is the definition of unhealthy soil? Who defined it? But even if we're looking at only agricultural soils, 34% of agricultural soils are cultivated for crops.
They could be overfertilized, or how else is the soil unhealthy? I really need a clearer definition of what unhealthy soil means. Which ideas have been included, who came up with the definition, and where do the figures come from? And then I think we would be able to draw certain conclusions and be more specific. But what I'm always lacking is the question of urbanization and use of soils for urbanization, because most soil is used up because it's built over for towns, roads, etcetera.
And we often discuss the fact that we need more housing. No one thinks about rehabilitating the older buildings in our towns. We move out into the unused land and build on that as well. There are lots of fallow areas, but obviously it's more expensive to rehabilitate something than simply to start from scratch on fresh ground.
So I think it's very important for this entire initiative to include a commitment that new land can only be used if absolutely necessary. Otherwise, we should continue to rehabilitate and work on soil on land which has already been used.
Maria Noichl
Thank you very much indeed for this and also for the clear statement that soil is important. I think we're all aware of that. But it's about the fertile nature of the soil, ensuring food security.
But it's also related to water. In other words, how water trickles through, what happens there. There's a direct context between heavy rains trickling down, etc. So I'd be interested in how we evaluate this mission's soil.
You were talking about 100 points where good things are happening. Labs providing information about the condition of soils, but there's something else I would like to ask. Obviously, you're responsible for soils in the commission, and I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that with the new gap, there's a situation whereby everything to do with soil that came under eco schemes beforehand was 100% funded from Brussels, which could support soil has been got rid of, and it's now co-financing. So on the one hand, we're saying that soil is the main mission in Europe. But on the other hand, we don't have 100% funding through the CAP.
And member states are supposed to put something in there as well. But what about Member States that don't have the funding? So, in the future, I think we have to ensure that there will be funding, and we should have 100% support for well-cultivated soil.
But then obviously, this question of soil monitoring as well, obviously, what are we supposed to do with that? We've seen a bit of a belly flop beforehand, but you were talking about mission and the question of links to climate, water, cancer, the things, what are the links? Because you were saying that there are four different points. But maybe cancer, leave that on one side.
I'm not a doctor, so I won't say much about that. But soil, climate, and water are not three separate missions. It is a single mission. So I wonder whether anywhere has all been linked together, or whether we have these individual pillars one next to the other.
So thank you very much indeed for doing something in the Commission about soil, because it's urgently needed.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you, Chairman. Well, if someone is familiar with soil, it's a farmer. Farmer is a gardener on his land. Maintains the soil on a daily basis, and is responsible for the good health of the soil.
And I'm saying this because some people still tend to stigmatize them, say that they're predators. And we've heard that here and elsewhere. Since day one, the farmer understood that back in the Neolithic age, cultivated soil has to be irrigated and fed. But irrigation is an extremely important issue.
And here in this committee, at some point, we need to start thinking about water storage and irrigation, which is going to become increasingly important. And livestock breeding is also a guarantee of good soil quality.
You can't reduce a bovine stock for reasons of ideology, for example, but at the same time, maintain good soil quality, because limiting meadowland is putting other priorities forward and maybe therefore impoverishing soil.
Now, organic farming doesn't protect soil more, unlike what people have said. Some of the organic inputs are bad for the soil as well. So let's trust our farmers. Let's involve them in these living labs that we heard about.
We need our farmers. We need a flourishing farming world in our country. Side, because the less farmers we have, the less healthy our soils will be.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much. Jean Bartelsson, please for ACR. Thank you, chair.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
And thank you to the commission as well for your presentation on the EU Commission for Soil Health. Healthy soil is incredibly important. I think I'd agree with the commission on that, and what others have already said about that. Healthy soil is important for our food production.
Important for biodiversity, and I think it's also very important to invest in soil quality, and hence it's very important to adopt good practices and exchange those practices. And I think the missions that the EU is organizing can provide an important role in doing this. And it's important to underscore to continue these missions even under the new Horizon programs. So the exchange of good practices is extremely important.
Now where I'm more hesitant is the approach that's being chosen within the framework of the soil. Directive, which is focused very much on controlling soil quality, with all the monitoring obligations. And you be right in asking questions about whether that level of centralized decision-making is important. If it's national or regional, then surely soil is important.
What is cross-border about that? But, okay, we've got the soil directive. And I'm a bit worried about bureaucracy, red tape. Hence, the question I'd like to put to the quiz commission is what's the state of play when it comes to the implementation of the soil directive, and how is the commission ensuring that the farmers aren't being confronted with overwhelming administrative burden because of the soil directive.
Daniel Buda
Thank you. Thank you very much for the renewed next speaker, mister Mululi.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair and colleagues, and thank you indeed for the presentation this morning. Renew welcomes this practical approach and this practical proposal to protect, to restore, and to maintain healthy soils across the European Union. I think this is exactly the kind of initiative we should support. It's practical. It's science-based and grounded in the real experience of farmers and rural communities.
Right across our union. Agriculture is already facing the effects of climate change. We know that flooding, drought, and wind erosion. And we know that healthy soil performs better water, better supports stronger growth, and gives greater resilience in difficult conditions.
We've seen this on the ground. We should also remind ourselves that it can take 1000 years to create just one centimeter of soil. So that soil can disappear in one torrential rainstorm. This is why prevention is so important. So once soil is damaged, restoring it is neither quick nor indeed easy to do.
What is especially positive about this mission is that it links research with practical action. It is not research for the shelf. It's research designed to deliver solutions that can work at the coalface of farming and make a real difference.
So I'm pleased to say that I support this. And Ireland hosts a full mission-aligned living lab. To the project. It brings together the technological university of the Shannon with Ballyhara development, Clock Jordan Community Farm, Loop Head together, and the Kraken Seeds Limited Company, all working together at the coalface of farming across Clare, Limerick, and Tipperary. It's a very good example of how the European policy comes together with local communities and researchers to deliver practical results.
Healthy soil is indeed the foundation of sustainable agriculture, food security, and resilient rural areas. I wish you well in achieving the results, the goal of establishing 100 live labs in the EU, and I'll do my part to encourage more in my region. For that reason, Renew is very pleased to support this proposal.
Thank you.
Tilly Metz
Thank you very much. On the one hand, I am very happy about this mission soil. And on the other hand, I think we know exactly what to do in order to have healthy soils. And we are completely aware, and so is the commission, of the need to implement really a one health approach because there's also Maria Neuschel said, if we speak about climate, if we speak about water, soil, it is all linked. We know what to do, to avoid erosion, therefore, we need to avoid bare soils.
We need cover crops. We need more agroforestry. We need polydiculture. We need to reduce synthetic chemicals on the soil. We need to enhance diversity, and above and below the ground.
So and we need, of course, as I said already, reduce the risk of floods and droughts. And this approach will then lead to more fertile farmland. And please, let's not spread this information.
We know that intensive farming is bad also for the soil and for the water. But, of course, if we have a livestock that respect the natural boundaries, yes, then we can speak that this could be hand in hand by protecting also the diversity of the soils.
But saying that intensive farming is good for the soils, I found that a little bit, I don't know the word in English, sorry, for that. So we need to protect the water, the soils, and this is also in the interest of the health of the farmers, of the health of our citizens, and it's guaranteeing the future of agriculture, of our farmers, and of our food sovereignty.
So just let's act and use 40 billion that I mentioned in a coherent way. Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much. A very important thing to do. And without soil, we won't have food. And without food, we won't have life. So it's fairly obvious we've got to protect them.
I think what we're trying to do here makes a lot of sense. But it is only going to measure the health of our soil. It isn't necessarily going to improve the health of our soils.
And to improve the health of our soils, various different directives, regulations were mentioned: nature restoration and water framework, lots of other things were mentioned. But ultimately, to do a lot of this stuff, we need to incentivize farmers to do this work. And to incentivize them well, surprise surprise, we need money. And we now have less money than ever.
I would have been in favor of the nature restoration law, but what I wouldn't have been in favor of is there was no actual real budget push in place. And if you do that, all you do is turn people against doing what needs to be done if you don't provide the funding. And as a time when there is less money available for farming, less money available for everything other than buying tanks and guns to basically kill people, and you'd have to question how serious we are about soil.
One area that I haven't heard mentioned yet is the whole idea of agroforestry and the benefits of that, but yet again you need money to incentivize people to do this, and we have never made less money available.
So if you have a shopping list, and we do have a shopping list, and they are essential goods that we're looking to buy, unfortunately, we're going to the shop with no money. At the moment, we're a bit like a child at Christmas with a big, long list.
But I have news, Pierre, Santa Claus isn't going to pay for this. We've got to pay for it. It's really important to do it. I agree with the idea of it.
Actually, be worried about what results we're going to find though because we're not investing enough in this area.
Ivan David
If. We are talking about the relationship between soil quality and farming. Actually, the correlation is not as simple as it might seem because farming, when done well, can contribute to improve soil health and soil quality. But it can also lead to soil degradation.
This can be linked to intensive livestock farming, also a growing utilitarianism, this kind of orientation. And also the fact that less manure is brought onto the fields. Which reduces soil productivity.
Irrigation can be beneficial. But it can also mean that some water streams simply disappear. This is what happened next to the Aral Sea or a lake where a major river no longer flows into the lake because all of the water is consumed for irrigation. At the same time, it needs to be said that if we use deep wells for irrigation, which used to be the case in ancient Mesopotamia, this resulted in soil salination and the soil becoming infertile. So yes, we need these measures, but there are no easy solutions for improving soil health.
And soil quality. Generally speaking, if we remove a green cover, then there is not enough humus which would normally naturally form. It used to be as happened in Ukraine, over hundreds and thousands of years, with black soil being created this way. And if we do not add manure to the fields, then, of course, the organic component in the soils.
Goes down. So again, the correlation is not so easy, and we need to maintain our soil in good health. Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Thank you. Thank you very much indeed for all your inputs. Before I give Mister Kangofano the floor, I would like to stress some of the questions regarding soil. Farmers I believe, are the people most involved in the question of soil quality and maintaining that quality indeed because it's something that can't be replaced.
Your tractor breaks down, you can replace it. Animals can be replaced, but you can't replace the soil. Farmers are fully aware of what maintaining soil quality is all about. Because the profitability, the yield of their farms depends on the quality of the soil. So clearly, it's very important for us to have the best practices and make them available to the farmers.
I would like to stress the partnership with universities, with the academic world. We have to find the best cooperation channels and make those available to farmers, so that they can implement on their farms. Very often, farmers work around the clock.
They don't have the time to see what they can do to reduce salination of soil that we had mentioned beforehand. So we need research. We also need financial support for the farmers. We need to follow a track of maintenance for future generations. We need to use our soils in a rational way.
Someone was saying beforehand, we need to solve the housing problem through renovating rundown houses as they exist now. We have to understand that farmers know they need good quality soil. And we should also be concerned about the sustainability of soil for future generations. Farmers need information that they can then use on their farms to ensure the sustainability of the farm, but also to maintain this wealth for future generations.
So, direct, you have eight minutes to respond to the questions which have been asked.
Diego Canga Fano
Thank you very much, Mr. Chael, and thanks to all the participants in this discussion. I really thank all of you because I think we all agree that surely it is important.
There is consensus in this meeting room that soil is crucial for farmers. I mean, normally, when I come here, we and the commission come and we get questions from you. This time, I am here to tell you openly, please help us to disseminate this sole mission program.
We need your input. You are from 27 nationalities. You are very well connected at home. We are going to spend money in the next few years, and we want openly your help to disseminate the soil emission.
Let me reply to some of the points which were raised today. Mister Dohrman, I think he's not in the meeting room, but the indicators of the 60% soil degraded coming from the joint research center, and it covers agricultural soil, but also all kinds of soil. And actually, for agriculture, the figure is even worse. So those are indicators.
Public, used by the joint research center and an order of duties to improve the quality of soil. Second, to Madame Oil again, thank you very much for her remarks. And want to reach 100 living labs. That's the objective.
So we are in 45. Very likely, we will reach more than 100 living labs, which is already very good. And the beauty of the living labs, as some of you said, is that it's farmers talking to farmers.
There's something I learned in my career in DG Agri, it's that farmers listen to farmers. Farmers maybe don't listen to me, but farmers listen to farmers. And it's very important that we do these living labs with the involvement of farmers.
And, again, we are 45. We need to have more, and we want your help to have more living labs. I totally agree with you. We don't work in silos.
I agree with what you said about One Health. We work with the College of Water. Of course, we work with the College of Water. Of course, we work with the colleagues of climate change. We don't work in isolation.
The missions are interconnected. But I am here for the sole mission. I'm asking openly for your help.
Mister Penel, I will answer in French because I fully agree with something he said. That we should trust our farmers. I fully agree with that. It's what he was saying about good soil quality.
As I was saying beforehand, one of the interesting things behind this project is that we are working with farmers. It's not purely academic research. It's research and work done in the field with farmers. And I believe that will help us improve the soil quality with them. And then because farmers listen to other farmers.
And your congratulations for what you did yesterday. Well done. Thank you very much. A fantastic report you produced on behalf of DG Agri. On the soil framework directive, I took your point about the bureaucracy, I knew. And, I mean, this new directive, there are no new obligations for farmers, as you know.
So we are confident that farmers will not be affected. I know colleagues of this environment are monitoring this directive. So I hope your point will be taken into account.
I was particularly pleased to hear Iris Cauley, mister Mouloni, about the living lab in Ireland in Tipperary, indeed it is one of the most famous examples we have. I hope we would have more.
Again, we have money. We are going to spend the money, and we want your help. To boost these living labs around the 27 member states. I also agree with madam Mertz on the one health, indeed.
I think it's totally agreeable. For Mister Flanagan, we do have money for his concern. He mentioned in particular agroforestry in the calls we are going to make public, which are public.
€370,000,000. There is one particular topic to financial agroforestry, and we do have a partnership of financial agroecology, which is not exactly agroforestry, but we do have money, €370,000,000. And, again, my message is please help us to spend well this money in your countries.
And I think that was all, mister Buddha. You know, I agree with you on what you said. And I want to get again, to reiterate my message. I'm here to try to get your interest in the mission soil.
We need you. We have money. We're going to spend it. So please help us in disseminating the Mission Soil in your authorities. Thank you very much, Mr. Buddha.
Daniel Buda
You. Very much indeed. For your comments there. Yes. We are all aware of the importance and the need to have this exchange. So I think that your input has been very positive.
Farmers are obviously interested in exchanging good practices among themselves. They're less interested in communications from the authorities as a degree of resistance there. But, obviously, it's up to us to provide them with the necessary information, the necessary framework in order to be able to have this experience exchange because we're all interested together in the sustainability of our farming world, food security for future generations, it all depends on healthy soil. So we are part and parcel of your efforts to spread that information. If the financing is available, it has to be spent on our common objective, which is soil health.
That said, I would like to now move to the next item on our agenda. The director has arrived, I see. On this item, addresses the situation in the Middle East and its implications for the agricultural sector. The war has upset maritime traffic and damaged energy infrastructure throughout the entire region. Energy prices have increased, and global trade has taken a downward turn. Among other consequences, there's also been a drop in regional fertilizer exports.
And fertilizers that are being exported have been affected by increases in production costs, particularly nitrogen-based fertilizers. Which depend on gas coming from the Gulf States. And that further complicates a situation which has already been deteriorated by the invasion of Ukraine, and shows yet again how vulnerable and dependent Europe is.
It's not easy to predict how the conflict will evolve. And so I'm very grateful to Miss Brigitte Mison from DG Agri for having joined us today in order to share with us the commission's analysis of the situation. And, in particular, stress that, in particular, to hear from her the measures to come from the commission to mitigate the impact.
Brigitte Misonne
Madam, I will give you the floor for 10 minutes. And then I will ask coordinators and members to raise any questions they may have. Many thanks, Chair. Good morning, honorable members of parliament.
I understand that you are giving me 10 minutes.
So it's the first time I have such a generous time dedicated to me. So, thanks for that. I agree with your introduction. We are in a particular situation that requires an exchange of views.
So, the Middle East crisis is indeed having a serious impact on the global economy. And food security, in particular. Its effects are felt worldwide. Prices of energy and fertilizers, as you just mentioned, Cher, have steeply increased since March.
Some figures for you. Plus 54% for crude oil, plus 59% for gas, plus 20 to 50% for fertilizers, depending on the type of fertilizer. So, what does it mean for farmers? It means, of course, rising input costs that are putting pressure on EU food production. Contributing to inflation. In particular, escalating energy and natural gas prices are driving up fertilizer prices in the European Union.
Even before the conflict escalated, the fertilizer market was under pressure for a series of reasons, including the anticipation of CBAM certificates to be paid in 2027. In the first four weeks of the conflict in the Middle East, EU prices further increased for most fertilizers.
Again, a set of percentages for you. Urea prices went up by close to 50%. If you want an exact number. That would be between $2.30 and $2.50 per tonne.
Compared to February, so before the conflict. While other nitrogen-based fertilizers increased by around 20% to 25%. So that's where you see the difference in increase depending on the type of fertilizer.
There are concerns here and there, so not overall, but sporadic concerns for certain spring crops or for the fertilization of the pastures. But overall, we assessed that fertilizer needs for this year's spring applications appear largely secured.
And EU grain prices remain broadly stable. This gives some reflection time for us to better assess the upcoming impact on agricultural production. Seen from today, the outlook is uncertain with continued volatility expected.
Where does our attention focus now? We focus on the fertilizer needs for the next harvest. For the harvest of 2027. For which farmers will start planning their fertilizer needs in the coming weeks.
Energy is another big concern for farmers. It's another big item in their costs. Notably through diesel for machinery, but also gas and electricity for housing, for cold storage, for livestock and fruit and vegetable farms, among others.
With time, we count between three to six months. Price increases for energy and fertilizers will trickle down to food prices. The cost of energy for machinery and fertilizers represents between 10-35% of total cost of agricultural products.
Depending on the member states. In the food processing sector, because we do not look only at the agriculture part, but also at processing and retail. In the food processing sector, energy costs represent around 2% of the total costs.
To give you another item for comparison, transport and warehousing inter-processing costs in the presenting sector. Represents 6.5% of the total costs. And then in the retail sector, direct energy costs represent some 1% to 2% of the total costs. In other words, there are
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.