Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development HEARING Public hearing on "A new funding structure for the CAP"
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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMaria Escobedo Ostergard
At least in the current CAP we have seen examples that in the current CAP there were new opportunities which in practice did not really work well for farmers. I come from Denmark and there we spent a lot of time on trying to design a tool where farmers could actually have incentives to have small biotopes in the eligible areas for support. But it turned out that this tool was actually too rigid. It needed to be controlled a lot, there was a lot of limitations on how to use it and that meant that in practice the Danish farmers did not use this tool that much as we would have hoped for or expected because that would actually have been very beneficial for biodiversity.
This is just one example. But when you look at the future toolbox, it's quite complicated with all these new regulations. We have the single fund proposal, and we have the CAP proposal. And it's no secret that COPA and COGECA would like to have had things been differently, but we also know that this is now the structure that we are negotiating in.
So of course we would recommend that we move as many articles as possible that are CAP-related into the CAP regulations. And also when you look at the planning process of this new large single fund, that you look into having, still having closeness to the farmers when deciding on how to implement for the farmers. Because what we fear is that now that we have a planning process of a very large fund at the national level, that this process will come further away from the farmers and then we will have more practical problems that will not end up being really solved in a good way from the farmers' point of view.
And then, if you look at the control systems, the European Commission has also suggested some changes there, for example, for the control of conditionality, which in the future will be called farm stewardship, where this control should now be decentralized. In some Member States, this will mean that actually the controls will be much more complicated in the future because it will involve many more local municipalities, so on and so forth.
So our clear recommendation for you would be to enable member states to continue with the current system where there's a centralized control from the paying agency. And then four central points from our side will be still even though that we have now maybe even more leeway from the member states to remain to ensure the commonality of the support for the future because the internal market for agricultural goods and food should work and we need a level playing field along across the member states and this is also very important in the implementation process for the future.
But then the next part is competitiveness, that we ensure that the European farmers maintain their competitiveness in the future, no matter if you are a farmer in southern Spain or in the northern of Denmark. And there are different issues there. Because this is a precondition for delivering food security for the European Union, which is an agenda that has been reiterated.
It is important for the farmers to be able to invest in sustainable production and the green transition that we want also for the future of European agriculture. So competitiveness is very important and we need the right balance of these tools and we need to have that in the coming CAP. And in that part we also need to remember that green transition is not only extensifying agricultural production, actually it's also to use new technologies and investing in new technologies, modernizing the farming sector so that the farmers can actually deliver less emissions per produced unit. And I think that should be a very important focus also in the European Parliament, not only looking at extensifying but also looking at, you know, reducing the footprint of what the farming produced.
And the two last points is first of all continuity. Some farmers with the proposal from the European Commission would experience a very, very large change from 27 to 28 where the new regulation will start. For example, due to capping degressivity.
We would actually recommend not to have mandatory capping degressivity as it is proposed in the regulation, but rather that if there should be some redistribution of funds between larger and smaller farms, which there might be in some countries, that this is decided nationally what makes sense and takes care of the specific farm structure that is in this member state. And the last part is to use the carrot more than the stick, incentivizing the farmers, incentivizing at a level where it goes beyond compensating for costs and income foregone if you look at the green payments, so that we actually get a real carrot of farmers can have a business out of doing the green transition. This is something which is very important for us. Yes. I don't know what about the time, is it okay?
Okay. Great. Thank you.
I think so, so looking at the structure, commonality, competitiveness, continuity, and then the carrot rather than the stick, I think that would be some central points from our point of view. Thank you.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much, Ms. Østergaard, for your contribution. With that, we move immediately to Mr. Vernet from Farm Europe. You have the floor for six minutes as well, please.
Luc Vernet
Dear Chair, thank you, thank you for organizing this hearing. And I have to say that it's interesting that the keyword of the title is structure.
Because clearly, when we assess the package of NRPP, CAP, CMO, performance framework, we have a big challenge related to the structure of this package. And as Farm Europe, we very much welcome the political ambition widely shared in this Parliament in favor of an autonomous, common, and well-funded agricultural policy. But translating this ambition into concrete, practical solution is a challenge.
And we see that on the Council side already, between the Coreper and the SCA, we have contradicting position for a very important topic such as the definition of beneficiary. That's regrettable, and the most effective way to overcome such a situation is indeed to bring back the autonomy of the CAP. The first step has been taken by transferring most of the article into a CAP regulation, but we consider that we should go further by creating an autonomous plan, not only a simple chapter, with its own rules, design, validation, and own performance framework.
We cannot assess the performance of a policy for a farm like a policy for a bridge or a migration center. These are different topics. Autonomous performance indicators should be preserved. Sustainable and efficient agricultural production is an objective in itself. It should be recognized as a pillar of performance and placed at the heart of the CAP as a fundamental and cross-cutting principle in its very first article.
The common for the CAP is at risk of being replaced by competition, internal competition. At high speed, the single market is turning into a battlefield, and this is already a reality at a time where we should leverage the internal market for collective sovereignty and geopolitical influence. To be concrete, two elements to avoid losing the C. On the environmental side, a catalogue of measure we consider that it's not enough. We need to make one more step to avoid undermining common rule.
Rightly, the Parliament calls for a clear baseline, but it must be given real concrete and legal force. Considerable work has been done to simplify cross-compliance under the last two years, under the impetus of the Commissioner Hogan and this Parliament committee. All this work should not be abandoned in favour of a farm stewardship that is not the end of conditionality, but a multi-speed conditionality. The diversity of agriculture is not a matter of national flags. It exists everywhere, even within our territories.
It's not easier to reflect it at national level than at European level. The comment as well on co-financing. We regret first the absence of a 100% EU-funded measure for environment and climate.
I will come back to this. But we also deplore the at least 30% without clearer limit. To secure a level playing field, we call for a clear rule, 30% co-financing coupled with a grandfathering clause in order to preserve the current level in the Member States that go beyond. On targeting those who need the most, an interesting but delicate concept, it's better to be factual rather than pointing out individual beneficiaries.
We assessed on real paying agency data the impact of the capping and degressivity. First on capping, it would concern a very small share of the EU budget and without taking into account employment, it would have serious consequences on the viability of certain farms in certain Member States. As for degressivity, very important to underline that we would touch the backbone of the production. Nearly 40% of the farms that would contribute are livestock farms, 35% arable and one quarter are located in less favoured areas.
As in previous reform, we would prefer to leverage the CAP focusing on public money that deliver tangible outcome in terms of strategic autonomy and sustainability. The discussion focus on reinstating a first and a second pillar, and we welcome this direction. We consider that indeed what is the core of EU policy must be 100% EU funded.
And that's why we consider that we should make one step more in order to recreate a climate and environment measure fully EU co-financed. Instead of eco-scheme, we would call it efficiency scheme, which would fall under the first pillar and would place competitiveness, production, and sustainability on an equal footing. The environmental and climate challenges are collective. We see with the heatwaves that we need to invest in adaptation of our farming sector.
Having a cut of more than 60% of our environmental program would be a bad news both for farmers and for the credibility of the CAP. Likewise, the range for DABIS 130-140 euros is inadequate since it does not integrate this current eco-scheme. On the same logic of common sovereignty, coupled payments are an important lever and we support the 20% plus 5 point. It matches this ambition of preserving the capacity to produce on all territories, even where production costs are higher.
And actually, the territorial dimension of the CAP should not be weakened, but on the contrary, reinforced. We also call for every farmer to have the opportunity to access to risk and crisis management tools. This should be a decision for farmers rather than the Member State.
It's immediately linked with our capacity to secure and to have an ambitious investment policy. To finish, these are a few key levers which would balance national flexibility and clear European orientation to prevent the CAP from becoming an à la carte program, preserving its political dimension and the political role of the Parliament in its capacity to steer a genuine project, shared common agricultural sovereignty at EU level for efficient and competitive production. Thank you very much.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much, Mr. Vernet. And now we go into the question and answer session starting with the EPP rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. Elsi Katainen is not with us.
Then I have to give the floor to me as a shadow rapporteur. I will switch into my mother tongue. Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Vorträge, für Ihre Einführung der neuen Herausforderungen durch den Kommissionsvorschlag.
Und aus Ihren Vorträgen ist ja klar geworden, dass ja die Kritik am Kommissionsvorschlag nicht wirklich abgenommen hat und wir ja jetzt mitten in der Debatte drin sind, was wir erhalten können, was wir erhalten wollen an bisherigen Aufbau der GAP. Und das werden Sie ja unter anderem dann am Montag auch sehen, wenn ich meinen Berichtsvortrag zur Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, meinen Berichtsentwurf, den ich dann damit natürlich auch zur Diskussion stelle. Aber zurück zum NPPP, wenn man den Bericht von der Kollegin Katainen ja genau anschaut, sieht man, dass da auch wir als Parlament gerne die zwei Säulen erhalten wollen, dass die Regionen eine Rolle spielen.
Und Frau Ostergard, ich glaube, uns muss es eben gelingen, wir haben verschiedene Situationen in der Europäischen Union, teilweise zentralisierte Systeme, teilweise sehr regionale, regionalisierte Systeme. Ich selber komme aus einem großen Mitgliedstaat mit 16 Bundesländern, da wäre ein komplett zentralisiertes System nicht wirklich sinnvoll. Andere Länder sind kleiner oder auch vom Staatsaufbau zentralisierter. Also ich glaube, uns muss es gelingen, am Ende da beiden gerecht zu werden. Ich finde, die Kommission macht es sich schon ein bisschen einfach, indem sie das sozusagen einfach den Mitgliedstaaten vor die Türe kippt.
Und insofern glaube ich, werden wir im Prozess da einiges an Änderungen sehen. Und wenn's um die Gemeinsamkeit der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik geht, sind beide Verordnungen natürlich in der Verantwortung.
Herr Verheyen hat ja auch das Kofinanzierungssystem angesprochen. Wenn wir dem Kommissionsvorschlag folgen würden, in all den Details, würden viele Maßnahmen dann gerade im Bereich Agrar, Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Tierwohl nicht mehr verwirklicht werden in den Mitgliedstaaten, weil die Kofinanzierungsraten dann zu hoch sind und die Knappheit in den nationalen und regionalen Budgets definitiv, glaube ich, über ganz Europa da sind. Und deswegen glaube ich, ist es richtig, dass wir, insbesondere die Kollegin Katainen jetzt in ihrem Berichtsvorschlag das Kofinanzierungssystem deutlich näher am jetzigen System orientiert hat. Über die Details können wir gerne in den kommenden Wochen und Monaten diskutieren. Ich wünsche mir, dass die Kommission erkennt, dass aus der Branche raus, ich habe auch den Eindruck aus den Mitgliedstaaten heraus, keine Revolution gewünscht war, sondern eine Evolution.
Und im Kern ist die Aufgabe glaube ich jetzt auch des Parlaments genau diese zu gestalten. Manchmal wünsche ich mir aber auch aus der Branche raus nicht immer nur die Elemente, die man auf jeden Fall ablehnt, sondern gerne auch mal Vorschläge, wie man es besser machen könnte. Das nur auch als kleiner Hinweis zum Ende. So, und dann kommt die Kollegin Cristina Maestre von S&D.
Cristina Maestre
Muchísimas gracias, presidente. Buenos días a todos y a todas. Doy unos segunditos para que tomen los auriculares porque voy a hablar en mi lengua materna.
Bueno, yo lo hemos dicho de forma insistente en todo este periodo y lo seguiremos diciendo. Creemos y creo que no podemos admitir que este nuevo modelo subordine la política agrícola común a una serie de prioridades o de objetivos que nada tienen que ver con ella. Y es tan dañina la propuesta que al final la conclusión y lo que muestra la propia Comisión Europea trasladando este cambio tan radical de modelo es que quiere absolutamente diluir la PAC y quitarle la fortaleza no solo legislativa, sino también presupuestaria que ya tenía. Y de este modo, pues la agricultura se queda en el aire, se queda totalmente desprotegida.
A mí me preocupan varias cosas. Bueno, puedo interpretar la posición del Consejo. Claro, en el momento en el que la Comisión se lava las manos y plantea un modelo en el que directa y descaradamente lo que está haciendo es depositar en los hombros o en el tejado de los Estados miembros la práctica financiación o una parte muy importante de la financiación de la política agrícola común, no debemos extrañarnos si en el Consejo están reticentes porque esto es un yo invito y tú pagas. Yo hago una regulación pero quien lo va a pagar es el Estado miembro.
Por lo tanto, bueno, como ponente en la sombra del fondo único, la propuesta que hemos hecho entre otras es reivindicar a la Comisión Europea que se mantenga el 100% de la financiación tal y como está ahora mismo y que no le hagan pagar a los Estados miembros. Entre otras cosas, no solo por la capacidad mermada financiera que pueda haber o las diferencias entre países miembros, sino sobre todo porque vamos a romper el mercado único y porque es una liberación de la responsabilidad que no debemos admitir. Entre otras cosas, a mí también me preocupa y quiero en este sentido preguntarle al sector qué opinan del cambio radical de modelo, porque observo que ya ha pasado un año desde la presentación, pero no escucho mucho al sector agrícola, a los agricultores, a las organizaciones con las que me reúno, reivindicar el modelo pilar uno, pilar dos.
El pilar uno es importantísimo, hay una parte que va a estar blindada. Nosotros vamos a pedir un plan nacional en la línea de lo que decía COPA-COGECA, lo hemos pedido ya, está registrado en nuestras enmiendas, pedimos un plan específico de la PAC para que no se diluya en ese fondo y en esa línea van parte de la buena parte de las enmiendas que hemos presentado los socialistas y demócratas, pero me llama la atención que el sector no diga nada sobre el pilar dos, cuando desde el pilar dos se financian muchas intervenciones muy muy importantes de inversiones para los agricultores y otras medidas que no están cubiertas en la parte del pilar uno ni tampoco en el ringfence.
Me gustaría saber y luego por supuesto el desarrollo rural que es esencial. Bueno, ya habrá ocasiones para contar las enmiendas que hemos presentado, pero tengo esa duda específica porque noto que como que queda un poco diluido y me parece que es tan esencial una cosa como la otra. Muchas gracias.
Norbert Lins
Vielen Dank. Thank you very much. Then we move to PfE. She's not there. Kay-Helge Bonde.
Then Bert-Jan Ruissen from ECR.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter en heel veel dank aan beide insprekers voor hun gedegen bijdrage.
Ik hoor een heel duidelijk pleidooi voor handhaving van het huidige budget voor landbouw minimaal. Ik hoor ook een duidelijk pleidooi om ervoor te zorgen dat we een eigenstandig landbouwfonds houden. In ieder geval een fonds wat we zoveel mogelijk zouden moeten loskoppelen van het NRPP. Ik ben het daar van harte mee eens. Ik moet eerlijk zeggen dat ik me grote zorgen maak over die koppeling van de landbouwgelden, de landbouwfondsen met het NRPP.
Dus u kunt ervan op aan dat wij alles op alles zullen zetten om te kijken hoe we de zaak zover mogelijk kunnen loskoppelen van het NRPP. Ik deel ook de zorgen die u uitte met betrekking tot het gelijke speelveld, want je ziet dat de lidstaten wel heel veel keuzemogelijkheden krijgen, met name ook heel veel keuzemogelijkheden over het niveau van de steun. Als lidstaten straks ook de ruimte krijgen om een flink deel van zeg maar de NRPP-gelden ook over te hevelen naar landbouw, wat misschien voor sommige lidstaten een aantrekkelijk idee is, dan kan dat wel leiden tot grote verschillen tussen landen. Als het ene land dat niet doet, geen gebruik maakt van die vrije ruimte en een ander land wel, dan krijg je enorme verschillen tussen landen en dat kan volgens mij het gelijke speelveld behoorlijk aantasten.
Eigenlijk de vraag die ik aan u zou willen stellen is: heeft u voor ons concrete ideeën over hoe we toch dat gelijke speelveld binnen het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid zoveel mogelijk in stand kunnen houden? Hoe kijkt u in dat verband bijvoorbeeld concreet aan tegen de voorstellen van de Commissie voor een minimum en een maximum met betrekking tot de basispremie? Is die marge eigenlijk niet te ruim? Maakt dat niet, leidt dat niet tot te grote verschillen? Nog een andere vraag, voorzitter.
Hoe kijken de insprekers aan tegen het do not significant harm principe? Als principe snap ik dat het een belangrijk iets is.
Tegelijkertijd vraag ik me af, als we dit in de wetgeving gaan opnemen, gaat dat niet leiden tot heel veel onnodige en ongewenste juridische procedures? Dus met andere woorden, moeten we dat wel willen? Nog een laatste punt. De Commissie kiest ervoor om de budgetten voor de telersverenigingen, de budgetten voor de sectorale regelingen, dus ook de budgetten voor de marktordeningen, om die te laten integreren in de nationale enveloppen. Is dat wel zo'n verstandige keuze?
Zou het niet beter zijn om aan te sturen op een meer centraal budget voor die sectorale interventies? Hartelijk dank.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Madam Østergaard. I have a few concrete questions in your direction. You were clearly opposing the concept or the idea of capping. While we're talking about first pillar, we're talking about hectare-based payments, we're talking about what is called income support.
The farmers you represent, 99% of all of these farmers are not getting more than 100,000 euros.
Can you help me to understand how you actually legitimize this position towards your own members? How can you actually explain that you advocate here for a very small minority of your members while I would say disregarding the interest of the big, big, big majority? And then a second question, and and this is this is maybe a more practical one. This concept of handing over the decision-making power about what is going to be supported and how much it is going to be supported is going to be handed over to the member states. We're all on the same page here, even though we have different, you know, reasons that we don't think this is a good idea.
And we're all not just fearing but expecting that this will cause several troubles in the member states. But my question towards you is I mean we need to cope with that situation and in the negotiations we might be able to advocate or even push through ring-fencing that goes more into detail. So that we include into the regulation more precise obligations for the member states where to channel the money and in which channels to channel the money. I think this is something we can reach in negotiations. But this might be in contradiction to the call for more flexibility so different member states can adjust the payments more to their actual needs on their surface.
So what is your position there? Should we go into detail and make detailed obligations for the member states or are you rather advocating for more flexibility, but which could lead to a very diverse, let's say, funding structure? And to Monsieur Vernet, could you help me understand who you're representing? Are you a think tank paid by industry or are you a lobby organization for industry?
I just couldn't find out, please help me to understand. Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thanks very much for your contributions to this important discussion. In a nutshell, what we're discussing here is how and why CAP is now gone after over 60 years. And we're talking about how it will work in a structure that will work in a synergistic way where all the funds of the European Union will be better spent. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I cannot think of a better way to spend European Union funds in my area than to give it to small-scale farmers. And I'm not a farmer. I'll never be a farmer. My father wasn't a farmer. But like everyone in my area, my father benefited massively.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, but we would have had to leave and move back to England if it wasn't for the Common Agricultural Policy. So if you want to achieve synergies, we had already achieved them. You could argue, and I would argue, that the money could have been better distributed. But we were going in that direction. And people go and look for stuff and they make demands and sometimes they get what they're looking for and they end up kind of sorry.
And there were protests, and there was right to have protests against what was happening in the CAP. But to me, the current CAP structure could have been adopted, if national governments wished to do so, to be more environmentally friendly, if that's what governments wanted to do. But governments did the minimum. It could have been better for redistribution, but governments, in our case in Ireland, went for the minimum. We could have done an awful lot more with this CAP.
So what I would ask is, and a particular question to Ms. Ostergard, when you talk about complications of the current CAP and how it needed to change, what could have been done at national level to make that better for farmers?
Like I'll give you an example, in Ireland people complain about the environmental schemes. They are designed at national level and in Ireland we have, and according to the Commission, one of the most complicated schemes. But we chose that. So the question I'd ask Ms. Ostergard is what could have been done at national level to make it simpler? And finally, in relation to competitiveness, I hate to hear farmers on about it.
Farmers have been getting more competitive all my life. And the more competitive they get, the less money they end up with, because the more competitive you get, you don't get the margin. So what type of competitiveness are we on about?
Are we on about competitiveness on price? But if we get competitiveness on price, where do we go with our competitiveness on sustainability, taste, animal welfare, and our overall standards? Something we can win on, we can't win on price. So when you talk about competitiveness, what exactly do you mean? And what are farmers going to get out of it?
Because I haven't seen them get anything out of it yet, just the supermarkets and just billionaires, not my neighbors, that's for sure.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much, then we move to the colleagues who want to come in as well, starting with Herbert Dorfmann.
Herbert Dorfmann
Ja, herzlichen Dank, Vorsitzender.
Ich hätte zwei, drei Fragen. Die erste an Frau Östergard. Wie auch der Vorsitzende gesagt hat, wir sind ja jetzt in einer besonderen Phase, was die GAP betrifft. Wir sind nicht mehr in einer Phase der allgemeinen Kritik dieser Vorschläge, sondern wir sind in einer Phase, wo wir in zwei Wochen Verabänderungsanträge jetzt haben und wo wir konkrete Verbesserungsvorschläge auf den Tisch legen müssen. Und ich denke, in der Debatte wäre es wirklich manchmal auch sinnvoller, wirklich zu überlegen, was, wie kann man konkret diese Vorschläge verbessern, als eine allgemeine Kritik anzubringen, was halt alles nicht geht.
Aber ich hätte eine sehr konkrete Frage, die geht ein bisschen in die ähnliche Richtung wie die des Kollegen Waitz. Sie sind gegen Capping und Degressivität. Es ist ja offensichtlich, dass es in einigen Teilen der Europäischen Union ein Landgrabbing gibt, das Ausmaße annimmt, das auch der Steuerzahler nicht mehr akzeptiert. Und ich glaube, man muss durchaus den europäischen Steuerzahler verstehen, wenn er sagt, ich bin eigentlich nicht bereit, das Landgrabbing des arabischen Königshauses, irgendwelcher Investmentfonds irgendwo in der Welt und so weiter zu akzeptieren.
Wieso soll der Steuerzahler das bezahlen? Und okay, man kann gegen Capping und Degressivität sein, aber haben Sie dann andere Vorschläge, wie man diesen Entwicklungen Einhalt gewährt? Weil irgendwie muss man ja eingreifen, wenn man das System erhalten will und Akzeptanz erhalten will. Eine Frage an Herrn Vernet. Sie haben gesagt, Sie wollen gleichzeitig mehr Gemeinsamkeit und höhere gekoppelte Zahlungen.
Wie geht das zusammen? Das heißt, wie kann man das, die Common Agricultural Policy besser erhalten und gleichzeitig fordern, dass jeder Mitgliedstaat dann mehr gekoppelte Zahlungen macht, weil ich glaube, dass die gekoppelten Zahlungen maßgeblich zu weniger Common in dieser Politik ausmachen. Und ich verstehe Ihre Kritik, bin ich durchaus auch teilweise auf Ihrer Seite, was die Kofinanzierung angeht. Aber ich glaube, den Bauern ist es relativ egal, wo sie das Geld bekommen, aus der von der Europäischen Union oder von dem Mitgliedstaat. Sie wollen nur das Geld.
Und wenn die Mitgliedstaaten nicht bereit sind, mehr in den europäischen Haushalt einzubezahlen, okay, dann ist vielleicht eine Kofinanzierung der richtige Weg, um den Gesamthaushalt, der den Bauern zur Verfügung steht, aufrechtzuerhalten, weil sonst ist mir nicht ganz klar, wie wir das schaffen sollten. Thank you very much. Then we move to Carmen Crespo Díaz, please.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias, presidente, y gracias a los panelistas y a los colegas, nuestros colegas que están hoy aquí. Yo creo que la agricultura de Europa es muy diversa y, por tanto, establecer normas muy cerradas en todas partes es muy complejo. Para eso se le da disponibilidad a los países miembros, porque la dificultad está ahí, la agricultura es muy diversa. Y evidentemente nadie quiere que en la agricultura europea haya una mayoría en la cuestión de fondos de inversión. Pero lo que está claro es que lo que no podemos es establecer una fórmula que afecte a los profesionales.
Durante años hemos trabajado para elevar el nivel, para tecnificar, para que sean más competitivos, para que tengan capacidad de adquirir empleo en la zona. Y desde luego una degresividad que permita el hacer daño a los agricultores profesionales creo que es el error mayor para la alimentación que puede cometer la Unión Europea. Eso no significa no amparar a los pequeños. Evidentemente los pequeños tienen que tener su capacidad dentro de esta PAC y además los más vulnerables.
Cuando decimos que no sabemos para qué sirven los pagos acoplados evidentemente para amparar sectores que son menos competitivos y que tiene agricultores más vulnerables. Por tanto bajo mi punto de vista donde estamos ya porque evidentemente el Consejo los países echaron hacia adelante la estructura de la PAC que se planteó y lo hicieron en el mes de noviembre. Por tanto ahora mismo en el Parlamento lo que estamos diciendo es lo que ya tenemos. Y dentro de eso también y no quiero extenderme mucho decir que un presupuesto sólido la capacidad que tenemos de señalar los programas a nivel europeo que no aparecen en esa bolsa común y que es absolutamente necesario para que la orientación de los países no acabe generando desigualdad entre los Estados miembros. Por tanto eso es mi criterio y creo que han acertado en cuestiones importantes al respecto de esa nueva PAC.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much Chair. Excuse me. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the speakers also for their contribution. Before I ask my questions I have one remark though.
I noticed that we have including the Chair 12 out of the 98 possible members of this committee present while we have such a important topic here. And unfortunately we did receive the invitation to this event very, very late.
So my kind request to the Secretariat is to organize this a bit better, because it is really a pity that we cannot have a proper discussion here with everyone. Nevertheless, I would like to remark, Ms. Østergaard, that I'm very happy to hear that for you, the green transition needs to be accompanied by competitiveness, and that green transition doesn't mean only extensification, that we should innovate and not only extensify. Because I mean, if we're only going to extensify, I really worry that the competitiveness of our farmers will be at stake here. Then, Mr. Vernet, I have a question. You mentioned your efficiency scheme.
I would like to know more about this. Could you elaborate on how you see this efficiency scheme work to work out and whether that will replace the current eco-schemes that we have? Thank you very much.
Barry Cowen
Thanks chair and thanks to our panelists for their contributions this morning. The budgetary reality for those that I represent doesn't look good. Our current CAP budget is 11.8 billion which is now proposed to be reduced by 20% to 8.2.
We can look at the flexible amount from the mid-term review that can be front-loaded into the CAP budget, but it means very little to our farmers as that money is allocated on the NRP key as per the proposed changes as opposed to the traditional metrics by which CAP is distributed presently. Then when we look at distributing the reduced budget, we're tasked with either offering less to farmers by way of direct payments or reduce the amount of money we spend on agri-environmental schemes. In Ireland, if we retain the average 183 euro payment per hectare and account for a ring-fenced budget for young farmers, which is absolutely crucial, we are left with very little for anything else.
So countries that are facing a massive shortfall will need to look to increase their co-financing rates far beyond what they are currently co-financing. So my question to Mr. Vernet and also to if the Commission could come in at the on this at the end, is there anything stopping member states from aggressively financing agri-environmental schemes with their national exchequer to make up the shortfall in the budget? We, for example, in Ireland co-finance to the tune of 57% presently.
And if it were such that we could do so to 100% or beyond, maybe we'd be in a position to honor the commitment that we have made and that we are making as a whole in relation to rewarding those who go beyond the existing conditionality in relation to following new innovation, technologies, and also looking at smaller holdings where they can make a contribution by way of carbon and nature, by way of diversity, by way of nature restoration. And if that's the only mechanism that may be available because of the budgetary constraints, is that something we could pursue?
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. In Ireland, over 120,000 farm families are deeply concerned about the direction and indeed the future of the new Common Agricultural Policy.
They're watching this debate. And this week, I welcomed representatives of Irish farming organisations here to Brussels, where they came to express their own concerns about this proposal, the dismissal of our two-pillar strategy. And of course, the reduction in the budget is first and foremost on their mind. We worked it out, if there is to be a reduction, it's something like 2,400 euros per farm per year. It will make their business just unsustainable.
So cutting that budget will only place further pressure on farm incomes and undermine the long-term viability.
But the funding model in Ireland, farmers fear that CAP funding could indeed in the future be absorbed into a broader national funding envelope and diverted to other non-agricultural priorities. So, you know, my question is what guarantees can we get that the Commission can provide the CAP funding and it will remain fully ring-fenced for agriculture, ensuring that money intended for farmers cannot be diverted elsewhere? Now, I listened to the speakers and I'm curious about how what proposals and some of their their comments can help in the overall situation. If we're against capping and we're not going to follow the the lead of the Commission, where will the excess money come from to support important issues such as generational renewal, supporting our farmers and supporting young farmers coming into the industry for the first time?
And Mr. Vernier commented in particular in relation to the access of farmers going forward to the risk and emergency. I'm actually interested to know what in practical sense how a farmer rather than a member state would have would go about doing that. That's one question I have as well. Thank you very much.
Asger Christensen
Tak for det, hr. formand. Forslaget, som ligger nu, det vil betyde meget, meget store ændringer i forhold til det, vi kender. Jeg er meget, meget nervøs for en renationalisering af den fælles landbrugspolitik i det forslag, der ligger. Og det tror jeg, vi kommer til at arbejde meget med.
Altså, ønsker vi stadig en fælles landbrugspolitik, eller vil den blive splittet i atomer i forhold til det forslag, der ligger? Og så er jeg faktisk for en gangs skyld enig med Thomas Waitz. Vi kommer til at se på støttelofter, både ud fra en udvidelse af antallet af lande i EU. Altså, skal vi have Ukraine med på et tidspunkt, skal vi have andre lande med på et tidspunkt, så er vi nødt til at kigge på støttelofterne. Og så er jeg også enig i, at jorden, den bliver koncentreret på færre hænder.
Og der er vi jo nødt til at kigge på et støtteloft. Og så er jeg også enig i, at jeg vil meget hellere have gulerod frem for pisk.
Det har bare den ulempe, at det jo medfører mere kontrol. Og der tror jeg, kan vi finde nogle modeller, som gør, at guleroden ikke medfører mere kontrol, sådan at det bliver simplificeret. Det tror jeg, det ville være, det ville være rigtig, rigtig godt for vores landmænd. Og så er jeg meget, meget glad ved de forslag, der ligger nu omkring yngre landmænd, altså førstegangsetablerede landmænd, de forslag, der ligger, at det kan være med til at understøtte fremtidens landmænd. Og så er det et ord, jeg mangler meget i den her diskussion, det er fødevaresikkerhed.
Den er lidt, den er blevet, den er trådt under fode, og det kommer vi til at skulle diskutere i min optik.
Men ellers tak for et godt oplæg.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much to all the colleagues. I think everyone had the possibility to contribute. And now it's up to our speakers to respond. I'd say three minutes to each of you, and then we listen to Ms. Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle. Please, Ms. Østergaard.
Maria Escobedo Ostergard
Thank you very much and thank you for this interesting discussion that we have in the room here today. Capping degressivity keeps coming back in the discussion and maybe so maybe just to reiterate that from the COPA and COGECA point of view, we understand the need that there could be specific considerations, needs for small-scale farmers, but the thing is we think that mandatory capping and degressivity is not the adequate tool to reach this objective basically.
Instead, it should be up to the member states to find out what would be the right way to actually help the small-scale farming in this specific member state. And this could be by also, you know, using the scheme for small farmers, using redistributive payments, so that the member states will have the toolbox, and then the member state can use what is the most efficient in the specific situation in the specific member state. And why is that? That is because all member states are very different.
We have very different farm structures and therefore we also have different needs in order to keep the right balance between the small farmers and the big farmers in the member states. Then there was this question about ring-fencing. Should we control the budget more? And this is, I think it's a quite difficult question. First of all, because we do not know yet the size of the budget.
And the size of the budget will actually be a very important determiner in also knowing how to actually, you know, divide things between different types of areas, different types of support in the Common Agricultural Policy.
So, I think when we know more about the size of the budget, the COPA-COGECA will get back to this. And then about competitiveness and green transition, I think it's important to look at here also that competitiveness can be many things, also depending on the type of farm. And it's not only competitiveness on price, but here we also look, need to look the other way around, look at the markets, that if the farmers compete on price, on quality, on the delivery of public goods, then there should also in the other end be a market which is ready to actually receive and pay for the goods in the other end. Thank you. I think that's it.
Yeah.
Luc Vernet
Yes, thank you very much. So, thank you for for all the questions which shows as well the challenge we are confronted with when we say autonomy, how we materialize it, when we say commonality, how concrete we can go and how far we can go in this direction, and striking the right balance between flexibility and commonality in this exercise is most probably the most complex exercise, especially because we want a policy that makes sense, but that do not undermine the level playing field of our farmers, and that's exactly what we do.
And that's exactly what we do as Farm Europe to address to your question. We are an economic association with all the members on our website and we try to work in this European spirit in order to have and to promote a policy, a common agricultural policy, but also all the other policy fields that have a direct impact on farmers and their value chain in order to promote and to have a strong economic and environmental performance sector. And that's one of the key challenges of this reform.
And that's why, actually, we would not like the Member State to put in a position to decide if they prefer optimizing their co-financing level or developing environmental programs, or going to investment policy, or going to risk management policy tools. Today, the main risk we have is for the Member State to make trade-off not based on the agricultural ambition, but on the finance ministry constraints.
And if I take a few examples, because we can take into account the flexibilities that have been proposed by the President of the Commission in January. If we trigger all these flexibilities amount for certain countries, do you imagine it's credible for a country like Poland to increase by 6.5 billion euro its co-financing level in comparison with today? No. For Romania to increase by 1.5 billion euro?
No, it is not credible. So we are, we are trying to find the balance where we secure the core ambition of the CAP within 100% financed and then to allow member states to secure co-financing level at the current level, otherwise we end up in a situation where we could indeed have 200 co-financing in one member state, 300 in some member states and less, 30% or even less because I think for some member state it is not even credible to go to 30% and we will see that at the end of the negotiation.
So that's why the responsibility is very important to find and to try to find this this balance to secure to secure common a common policy. On risk management and crisis tool, we believe that these tools are very much connected to investment decision at farm level. Because when you are in the investment phase on your farm, you need to cover your risk.
And it is in a way unfair for one farmers not to have access to these tools if the Member State does not want to develop those tools. So we think that we should secure the fact that all the Member State shall develop risk and crisis management tools in order to secure the farmers that are in this investment phase, that mobilize on investment tools to protect their farm. I think I addressed in a different way several questions. If I may just one on the efficiency schemes, which is an important idea that we developed.
If we take the initial Commission proposals, environmental scheme might drop by two-third and more, which we think is the wrong signal for the policy and for the farmers today. They are interesting programs, but we need to acknowledge as well that some eco-schemes in some countries did not work well and we had very important unspent money in some Member States. So we suggest to reshape a hundred percent envi and climate scheme, but combining and making clear that it should combine production and sustainability together in order to deliver on the transition with an economic ambition.
And I finish by addressing the idea and the very important comment on competitiveness. I fully agree, even from one field to another on the same farm, we have different production costs. And we need to take this into account.
One important dimension of this policy, and we would like to focus even more on that, is the territorial approach and the adaptation to the payment to the reality in the field. And this is why we would like to support schemes that fine-tune the payment depending on the agronomic potential of the region, especially taking into account that we are at the moment where we are discussing with a country, Ukraine, that is super competitive because of the asset of their soil. So there is the dimension of the size, but more of the size, the idea is how to make this idea of having agriculture all across the territory a reality in the field. And I think that's a key challenge for our policy. Thank you.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much both for your very clear answers and explanation and for your contribution to this panel. Now I would like to ask the representative from the European Commission from DG AGRI to invite her for a short reflection and maybe some remarks from your side. You have seven minutes.
Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle
Thank you very much, Chair, for inviting us and thank you for offering us the opportunity to continue to engage with you and with the representative of COPA-COGECA and Farm Europe.
So I'd like to focus on four main points in relation with the different points that have been presented and discussed this morning. First of all on the on the numbers, on the budget, let me say that in addition to a ring-fenced, meaning a minimum and a secured budget for farmers, the Commission has also made some openings in November last year and in January 2026 also where we have given the possibility, we have proposed that Member States will in addition to this minimum ring-fenced amount will have access also to an amount that allows to align with or even exceed the current CAP budget.
Of course, this is still under discussion in the Council and here in the Parliament, but let me say that this House as well as the Council have already sent a powerful signal on many occasions. We will not waver in our ambition to support Europe's farmers, safeguarding the budget for the ring-fenced support for their income.
The discussion on figures will of course continue and of course they will be closely linked to the discussion on own resources as well as priorities, other priorities for the European Union. My second point will look at the so-called structure and governance, which you have highlighted is a brand new governance, though there are still elements that will continue and I will come back to that.
Let me say that what we have been aiming at is fostering links between EU funding instruments in this next MFF. So spending under the national and regional partnership plan will cut across policies creating synergies that support comprehensive support to farming and rural development while of course making sure that we secure a ring-fenced minimal budget for farmers.
There are huge opportunities to grab and to enhance the impact of CAP planning such as integrated investment along the food chain in essential infrastructure, irrigation, energy, services, knowledge, innovation and beyond. There are huge opportunities there to boost the effectiveness of the CAP with this combination of the other funding from the other policies. So agriculture will not be seen anymore in isolation. A farmer decides to stay on her or his farm if also not just because the CAP is there but also because infrastructure such as transport, connectivity as well as services are equally developed where he or she lives in rural areas. So this is also something that future synergies and complementarity of EU funding will look at.
Let me also mention that successful tools like LEADER will continue to play a key role in this respect. This will enable rural areas to benefit from a broader range of funding opportunities and expertise. My third point will focus on the tools. Both you, Mrs. Ostergard, as well as Luc Vernet, you have highlighted the importance for farmers to keep as much as possible, while improving, I guess, the current toolbox of the CAP.
And this is what we've been doing. All the instruments of the CAP have been preserved, both from the ones that we used to find in the first as well as in the second pillar. Okay, the pillars do not exist anymore, but the tools are there, which I think for the farmers is the most important.
And they have been also improved where this is possible, simplified and expanded when it is relevant. Let me give you an example, these new transition payments that we have introduced, which will help farmers to de-risk their transition, whatever the reason for this transition is. To become more competitive, to become more resilient, to become more sustainable. We want to build on the experience of organic farming, where there is a tool, the maintenance payment, that helps to de-risk the transition to organic farming, to expand that to other types of resilient and sustainable farming systems.
Since farm income continues to lag behind wages observed in the other sectors of the economy, the CAP proposal also keeps support for farmers' income and in particular the so-called direct payment. But there is a but there, which is, as you will have noticed, we want them to be more targeted and provide direct support to farmers who need it most.
So making sure it's not about punishing farmers, but to make sure that those farmers who need it most, like young and new farmers, farmers in areas with natural constraints, smaller farms, will be better supported and rewarded. And here let me say that that's why we have included an ambitious and mandatory degressivity and capping mechanism for these 100% funded interventions. Let me say that, and here I guess some of you might not be fully satisfied with that, but that 96% of the farmers will not be affected by capping and degressivity.
So, okay, this is an important evolution, but we need also to see that this is a gradual evolution going into the direction of a fairer CAP, while making sure that we continue to support those who are delivering most of our food security. My fourth point will be related to the common character of the CAP, because I agree with you, with many of you, this is an important element. We've introduced in this new CAP a lot of flexibility for Member States, hence looking at the number of articles, we used to have 350 articles in the CAP, we are now left with, I don't know at the end how many will be there, but around 50 articles. How to balance common rules with flexibility for Member States?
And here let me say that the CAP recommendation, the common objective, and the common rules will make sure that we keep a common policy. But this is important to see here that there are ongoing discussion, in particular in the Council, and I guess you will have them here, which are also putting at risk this common character.
And let me quote Commissioner Hansen, who said in the Agrifish this week that the current discussion on the CAP goes for too much flexibility at the expense of commonality. The Council has already proposed, for example, that nearly all mandatory interventions, such as environmental transition action, degressivity, small farmer payment, and the set-up of rural business, to become optional. And we have to pay attention to this. Thank you very much for your attention.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much for your remarks and explanation about the position of the Commission in this file. This brings us to the end of this first panel. And again, I would like to thank both panelists for their excellent contribution.
It was very useful, especially in the context of our negotiations and the debates for the NRPP and for the CAP. So your input is very useful and we will take that on board. Thanks for that. Now we have a short break maybe of one minute and then we will start. Oh sorry, you can stay if you want.
What I understand, sorry, the other panelists are online so we can continue with our panel as our second panel.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would propose to continue. Maybe you saw in the meantime that the face that you find new, you saw a new face in the seat of the chair.
Mr. Lins asked me to replace him because he had to leave a bit earlier. We will continue now with panel two.
The title of panel two is the implications of the new funding architecture and governance framework for farmers and national authorities: opportunities and constraints. And we start, our first speaker is Markus Höfner, head of the managing authority CAP strategic plans, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management from Austria. So Mr. Höfner, you have the floor for six minutes.
Markus Höfner
Ja, sehr geehrter Herr Vorsitzender, sehr geehrte Abgeordnete, werte Zuhörerinnen und Zuhörer. Ich bedanke mich sehr für die Einladung und die Möglichkeit, die Sicht der österreichischen Verwaltung in dieses Panel einzubringen.
Wir befinden uns derzeit in einer wichtigen Phase der Verhandlungen. Auch vom Europäischen Parlament ist bereits ein Entwurf eines Berichtsentwurfs bekannt geworden. Im Rat wurden bereits erste allgemeine Ausrichtungen fixiert, unter anderem für die NZP-Verordnung. Das heißt, die Verhandlungen schreiten eigentlich sehr schnell voran.
Ich selbst bin seit vielen Jahren mit der Umsetzung der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik beschäftigt, derzeit, wie der Herr Vorsitzende gesagt hat, als Leiter der Verwaltungsbehörde des österreichischen GAP-Strategieplans. Dieses Panel beschäftigt sich ja mit Chancen und Einschränkungen der neuen Architektur, der Finanzierungsarchitektur und des Governance-Rahmens. Ich beginne mit dem österreichischen Standpunkt zum mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen. Österreich als Mitgliedstaat unterstützt eine Modernisierung der Struktur des EU-Finanzrahmens.
Wesentlich für Österreich ist es, mit dem Finanzrahmen den Wirtschaftsstandort zu stärken, die Klimaziele zu erreichen, sowie Wachstum und Beschäftigung zu generieren. Auch tritt Österreich explizit für eine starke Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik ein, denn sie leistet einen zentralen Beitrag zur Versorgungssicherheit der europäischen Bevölkerung mit leistbaren und sicheren Lebensmitteln. Weiters fordert Österreich das Fortfinanzieren der ländlichen Entwicklung, denn unser Land legt einen starken Fokus auf diesen Teil der GAP. Beispielsweise nehmen 80 % unserer Landwirte mit 80 % der Flächen an freiwilligen Agrarumweltmaßnahmen teil. Soweit zu den Erwartungen an den Finanzrahmen.
Wird der neue Rahmen diesen Erwartungen gerecht? Darauf möchte ich anhand von drei Punkten eingehen, dabei aber die Höhe des Finanzvorschlags außer Acht lassen. Punkt 1: Keine fixe GAP-Finanzierung. Für uns steht jedenfalls außer Frage, dass die GAP insgesamt geschwächt wird, wenn die Finanzierung auf nationaler Ebene entschieden wird. Eine Politik kann immer nur so stark sein wie ihre Finanzierung.
Dass man nicht mehr auf europäischer Ebene festlegt, welche Mittel für diese wichtige Politik eingesetzt werden, wirkt sich sowohl auf die Verwaltung als auch auf die Begünstigten aus. Für die Verwaltung und die Politik heißt das, dass wir uns in einem Wettbewerb mit anderen Politikbereichen befinden, um nicht zu sagen in einem Wettkampf. Man kann anführen, dass dieser Wettbewerb bislang schon stattgefunden hat, aber eben auf der europäischen Ebene. Das stimmt bis zu einem gewissen Grad.
Allerdings ist die Dynamik anders, wenn dieser Wettbewerb die gesamte Politik, die gesamte gemeinsame Politik betrifft, in den großen Finanzverhandlungen. Nun besteht für die Begünstigten, und das ist ja auch im vorigen Panel schon angesprochen worden, tatsächlich die Gefahr, dass die Dotierung der GAP in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten unter die Räder kommt. Dadurch könnten die fairen Wettbewerbsbedingungen beziehungsweise ein bestehendes Gleichgewicht erheblich gestört werden. Hier ist die Kritik, dass das Gemeinsame der GAP etwas in den Hintergrund gedrängt wird, durchaus nachvollziehbar. In dieser Hinsicht kommt dem Ringfencing der GAP-Mittel eine große Bedeutung zu.
Damit kann diese Gefahr etwas gebannt werden. Allerdings wäre eine fixe Dotierung der GAP auf EU-Ebene aus österreichischer Sicht nach wie vor wünschenswert. Punkt zwei: Aufwendige Verfahren für die Erstellung und Governance des Plans. Was die Effizienz der Programmplanung und Umsetzung betrifft, hat die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik eine gute Entwicklung genommen.
Die aktuellen GAP-Strategiepläne sind zielgerichtet und haben überschaubare Verwaltungsstrukturen, auch wenn darin eine Vielzahl an Instrumenten der Politik-Umsetzung gebündelt sind. Die Einbettung in den nationalen und regionalen Partnerschaftsplan hingegen wird zusätzliche Verwaltungsstrukturen benötigen, um die Koordinationsfunktion zu bewerkstelligen. Das ist in Wirklichkeit genau das Gegenteil von dem, was erforderlich ist. Wir sehen das aktuell bereits bei den Legislativverfahren, wie komplex das Einbeziehen der vielen Beteiligten ist. Dafür sind Ressourcen erforderlich, die wir nicht haben oder die die Umsetzung noch teurer und weniger effizient machen.
Das ist ein Mehr an Komplexität, das zumindest bei den Landwirten und Landwirtinnen nicht direkt ankommt.
Das heißt, davon ist eigentlich die Verwaltung betroffen. Allerdings könnte ein Mitgliedstaat durchaus zum Schluss kommen, dass aufgrund der Komplexität nicht mehr die aktuelle Vielfalt an Maßnahmen angeboten wird und davon wären dann auch die Begünstigten betroffen. Österreich ist ja hinsichtlich der Größe und der beteiligten Stakeholder überschaubar, aber selbst wir haben es noch nicht geschafft, die Aufgaben und Verantwortlichkeiten für die Erstellung und Umsetzung des nationalen Plans konkret einzelnen Behörden zuzuweisen. Vor allem die Koordinationsstelle ist noch vakant.
Dritter Punkt: Leistungsorientierung und Kostennachweise. Leistungsorientierung ist in der Theorie ein guter Ansatz. Die praktische Umsetzung wird den Erwartungen aber leider nicht immer gerecht, vor allem weil bei Systemprüfungen ja auch die Rechtmäßigkeit und Ordnungsmäßigkeit der zugrunde liegenden Transaktionen sichergestellt werden muss.
Hier befürchten wir, dass wir letztlich mit einer Doppelstruktur leben müssen, was natürlich ineffizient wäre. Einerseits werden Zielwerte, Etappenziele und deren Erreichung zu prüfen sein, andererseits können Systemprüfungen nur sinnvoll durchgeführt werden, wenn Transaktionen ganz konkret unter die Lupe genommen werden. Hinzu kommt, dass zumindest in unserem Fall das Haushaltsrecht selbstverständlich weiterhin die Überprüfung der Kosten bei Projekten vorsieht.
Wir sehen die Kritik des Europäischen Rechnungshofs an der Aufbau- und Resilienzfazilität als durchaus gerechtfertigt und teilen diese Bedenken. Wie die komplexen Verwaltungsstrukturen sollte aber auch dieser Punkt keine direkten Auswirkungen auf die Landwirtinnen und Landwirte haben, es sei denn, der Mitgliedstaat kann im Fall der Nichterstattung von bereits geleisteten Zahlungen keine weiteren Verpflichtungen mehr eingehen. Das könnte durchaus eine Gefahr sein.
Ja, soweit unsere doch nicht unerheblichen Bedenken zur neuen Architektur. Für die Begünstigten sind diese Risiken aus unserer Sicht geringer als für die Verwaltung, wenn es tatsächlich gelingt, so wie Frau Schlo-Lannel das gesagt hat, die aktuellen Interventionen weiterzuführen. Und sofern natürlich auch die Finanzierung in der erforderlichen Höhe sichergestellt werden kann. Ich bedanke mich für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit und freue mich, wenn ich in der Diskussion auch noch meinen Teil beitragen kann. Vielen Dank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, Mr. Hoffner, for your clear contribution. Now we move to our next panelist, our next speaker for this panel is Ms. Silvia Capdevila, Director General of the Spanish Paying Agency and Coordinating Body from Spain.
Mrs. Capdevila, you are there, may I give you the floor.
Silvia Capdevila Montes
Buenos días y muchas gracias por la invitación a participar en este hearing. Next slide please. Intervengo desde la experiencia del FEGA como organismo de coordinación. Next one, thank you.
Como organismo de coordinación de los organismos pagadores de la PAC en España, que tenemos una estructura descentralizada. Esta presentación es para contextualizar nuestra situación. Y en nuestro país, como digo, contamos con una estructura descentralizada donde el FEGA es el organismo de coordinación nacional y también agencia pagadora nacional y coordinamos a 17 agencias regionales de pago. Y esta coordinación en nuestro caso es absolutamente esencial para asegurar una aplicación homogénea de la normativa europea.
Aquí también hay unas cifras que resumen nuestra situación para el año 2025 con más de 600.000 agricultores que reciben pagos de la PAC anualmente, más de 22 millones de hectáreas controladas anualmente y 7.700 millones de euros pagados anualmente. En este sentido y en este contexto consideramos que el nuevo modelo del plan nacional o regional que se plantea puede ofrecer oportunidades de coordinación entre políticas pero también plantea riesgos muy importantes desde nuestro punto de vista si no se definen con claridad las reglas. Next one please. Quisiera centrarme en estas seis preocupaciones que voy a ir comentando una a una. Next one please.
La primera es el presupuesto.
Nos preocupa, como ya se ha dicho por los oradores anteriores, que haya menos recursos disponibles para atender a necesidades que no disminuyen. Los agricultores seguirán teniendo que cumplir requisitos exigentes en materia medioambiental, climática, social y productiva, pero vemos que se reducen los recursos que están dedicados a la agricultura y además determinadas intervenciones dejan de estar claramente protegidas dentro del importe reservado para la PAC. Y es especialmente relevante para nosotros las intervenciones sectoriales, las dedicadas al vino, frutas, hortalizas o apicultura, que en el modelo que se plantea pasarían a ser cofinanciadas. En el caso de España estamos hablando de unos 8.500 agricultores que intervienen en estas intervenciones sectoriales y unos 400 millones de euros anuales pagados. Next one please.
La segunda preocupación es la complejidad de los planes estratégicos. La experiencia actual que tenemos con el plan estratégico de la PAC es nos ha demostrado que planificar, aprobar, modificar y ejecutar un plan de esta dimensión es un ejercicio extremadamente complejo y ha requerido una labor de coordinación extrema. Y nos estamos dedicando solamente al ámbito de la agricultura y del desarrollo rural.
El ejercicio que se plantea de centralizar toda la información de todas las políticas comunes en el plan nacional, gestionarlo y transmitirlo de forma eficaz, vemos que es una tarea altamente exigente y a realizar en un tiempo escaso. Porque además integrará políticas muy distintas, con una cultura administrativa muy diferente y con unos ritmos diferentes también. Para nosotros esto puede generar tres riesgos importantes. Primero, que la agricultura va a perder visibilidad seguramente. El segundo es desde el punto de vista de la aprobación del capítulo agrario, que se puede ver ralentizada o se puede ver retrasada por efecto de la aprobación de otros capítulos políticamente más sensibles.
Y el tercero es la modificación del capítulo agrario, que son modificaciones anuales y que probablemente no puedan hacerse con la agilidad que requiera el ámbito de la agricultura. Porque tenemos que tener en cuenta que para los agricultores los plazos importan mucho. Una ayuda que se conoce tarde, o una modificación que llega tarde, o una condición que también se publica o se difunde tarde, va a condicionar las decisiones de siembra, las decisiones de inversión y las decisiones de producción. Y por ello consideramos que el capítulo agrario dentro de este plan nacional tiene que tener unas reglas claras y poder modificarse de forma ágil cuando sea necesario. Next one please.
La tercera preocupación es la organización administrativa. La PAC es una política muy específica, todos lo sabemos, y tiene ritmos propios. El nuevo modelo nos va a exigir reorganizarnos tanto a nosotros como a la propia Comisión Europea y esta reorganización la vemos positiva si se mejora la coordinación, pero puede ser problemática si se crean demasiadas estructuras intermedias y se pierde esa interlocución y ese conocimiento técnico.
En el caso particular de la PAC, en el texto del marco para el nuevo plan nacional, se mantienen los organismos pagadores, pero el organismo de coordinación desaparece como organización con entidad y atribuciones propias. En el mejor de los casos, perdón, es una autoridad que asume funciones de coordinación. Next slide please. En esta diapositiva se puede ver todas las labores que se tienen que hacer anualmente en España para que los pagos lleguen puntualmente a los agricultores el 16 de octubre, los anticipos. Y coordinar todas estas tareas es esencial para que se mantenga el ritmo de pagos que tenemos actualmente.
Next one please. La cuarta preocupación es la gestión financiera.
La agricultura funciona por campañas y la previsibilidad para cada una de estas campañas es esencial. En este sentido nos preocupa esencialmente también la regla de descompromiso que se plantea N+1 para determinadas intervenciones de desarrollo rural fuera del sistema integrado de gestión y control, como son las inversiones, la instalación de jóvenes agricultores, el Leader o actuaciones en el ámbito de la innovación. Estas intervenciones para poder aplicarlas y pagarlas requieren tiempo.
Hay que convocar las ayudas, hay que seleccionar los proyectos, tenemos que ejecutarlos y tenemos que controlarlos. Y la experiencia actual nos muestra que una regla de descompromiso N+2 es ya muy ajustada, con lo que consideramos que una regla N+1 tal cual se plantea es probablemente poco realista y seguramente vaya a crear unas tensiones absolutamente innecesarias. La quinta, next one please. La quinta preocupación se refiere a auditoría, fiabilidad y correcciones financieras. Los Estados miembros, por supuesto, estamos comprometidos con la protección del presupuesto comunitario de los fondos de la Unión, pero necesitamos reglas claras, proporcionadas y conocidas además con antelación.
La previsibilidad es esencial.
Por esto, la metodología que utilice la Comisión para evaluar los sistemas de gestión y control debe ser una metodología clara, estable y no aplicable retroactivamente. No podemos cambiar las reglas del juego en mitad de la partida. Y también se debe garantizar un trato armonizado entre Estados miembros. El nuevo modelo de correcciones financieras que se plantea es completamente ajeno a la política agrícola común. Supone además una pérdida de ciertas garantías para el Estado miembro, como es el ámbito temporal máximo de 24 meses para la aplicación de una corrección financiera.
Perdemos también el órgano de conciliación y también las diferentes opciones del cálculo del importe a corregir. Consideramos que esto es un elemento también que tensiona y muy importante. Next one. Y la sexta y última preocupación es la orientación al rendimiento, orientación al resultado. El enfoque basado en resultados es positivo, pero debe diseñarse de una forma proporcionada.
El sistema actual de rendimiento ha exigido una inversión muy importante en tiempo, en recursos humanos y en aplicaciones informáticas.
Y por ello tenemos que aprovechar las lecciones aprendidas en este periodo, tanto en los indicadores que son similares como en los nuevos indicadores que se plantean. Los indicadores deben ser útiles, pero también proporcionados, porque la obtención y petición de datos siempre supone un coste. En el próximo periodo, las ayudas de la PAC se basan además en realizaciones o outputs logradas, y es necesario reportar dichas realizaciones para recibir el reembolso de los fondos por parte de la Comisión, lo que es un reto añadido, ya que en estos momentos no funcionamos de esta manera.
Para asegurar el correcto funcionamiento de los flujos financieros es necesario trabajar con esta previsión a nivel técnico y disponer de una metodología sólida y estable, evitando cambios continuos. Porque es tenemos que tener en cuenta que el dato, que esta información la conseguimos en el momento de la captura de la solicitud de la ayuda y para ello es necesario disponer de especificaciones técnicas claras y concisas en la fase inicial y evitar cambios en mitad del periodo. Next one please. Y termino con cinco peticiones concretas para este nuevo periodo. La primera es proteger suficientemente la financiación de la PAC.
La segunda es garantizar que el capítulo agrario de los planes pueda aprobarse y modificarse con agilidad.
La tercera es reconocer claramente la función de coordinación de los organismos pagadores de los Estados miembros descentralizados. La cuarta es asegurar unas reglas financieras realistas, especialmente en materia de flujos financieros y de descompromiso. Y la quinta es mantener un marco de auditoría, correcciones e indicadores que sea claro, proporcionado y adaptado a la PAC.
Porque nuestra principal preocupación en este momento es que la nueva estructura que se plantea, aparte de ser compleja, es que no funcione cuando tengamos que aplicarla. Muchas gracias.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, Mrs. Cap de Villa, thank you very much for your contribution. Now it's time for a Q&A. And we will start with the CAP rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, two minutes each. So we start with EPP. Do you like to replace Lins or no?
Okay, S&D, Mrs. Mestre, you would like to replace Dario Nardella, you have the floor.
Cristina Maestre
Sí, muchísimas gracias. La verdad es que quisiera agradecer las intervenciones de los panelistas que acaban de proporcionarnos un enorme bocado de realidad, porque vemos en la práctica más allá incluso de lo que nos temíamos. A mí, después de escucharles, me quedan todavía más preocupaciones. Estamos hablando de esa dilución de la PAC y de ese cambio tan radical y de cómo se va a trasladar en la línea de la intervención anterior. Yo misma lo enfocaba más en el depositar sobre los Estados miembros la capacidad financiera que pretende hacer la Comisión Europea, pero después de escucharles es que va mucho más allá.
Estábamos hablando de la falta de previsibilidad que van a tener los agricultores y se confirma con lo que acaba de decir la señora Capdevila, que lo ha explicado de una forma impecable y muy gráfica. No es solo la previsibilidad, por otro lado también es el esfuerzo enorme que van a tener que hacer los Estados miembros y sin ni siquiera una estructura definida que garantice la optimización de los recursos o esa necesidad que ella expresaba de coordinación a los diferentes niveles. Y luego el cambio de modelo, el ir a un modelo de cumplimiento de objetivos con todo lo que puede acarrear.
A mí me genera todavía muchísimas más dudas en un momento en el que venimos desde hace muchísimo tiempo queriendo responder a la petición que nos dicen los agricultores, que es una PAC más flexible y menos burocrática. Y lo que estamos viendo es que con este modelo, uno de los principales riesgos que nos trasladan también los agentes, los operadores y ante todo los Estados miembros a la hora de cristalizarla, es que podemos caer en una mayor burocracia y menos flexibilidad para los propios agricultores. Y volvemos a lo mismo, todavía más incertidumbres de cara a la propia programación. Lo decía, insisto, la señora Capdevila. Hay decisiones que se tienen que tomar con tiempo por parte de los agricultores para luego poder planificar también su explotación y el acceso a las ayudas.
Así que, bueno, pues esto es la tormenta perfecta. Nosotros vamos a insistir en recuperar esa previsibilidad que necesitamos y además en cubrir sectores que se quedan colgados en el aire sin la financiación necesaria. Lo ha nombrado la responsable del Ministerio de Agricultura, la señora Capdevila, la responsable del FEGA, en la línea de poner dos ejemplos muy significativos pero muy relevantes, por ejemplo para España, que son las intervenciones sectoriales de frutas y hortalizas y las intervenciones sectoriales para el vino, que son esenciales.
Y luego quisiera dejar una nota y ya termino, presidente, que siempre se nos olvida a todos. Hablamos de PAC, hablamos del fondo único, pero no, y hablamos de inversiones que están colgadas de hilos. Tenemos que hacer un esfuerzo entre todos para convencer a nuestros compañeros y también a la Comisión sobre la importancia de incorporar la agricultura en el fondo de competitividad. Es una cosa que no podemos consentir. Nos han ninguneado y estamos borrados y muchas de las cuestiones que aquí se toman también se podrían haber resuelto incorporándonos como de verdad un sector estratégico.
Muchas gracias por su generosidad.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much for your contribution. Next is PfE. Nobody from the PfE, I think. ECR, here I've already placed my colleague Carlo Fidanza, and I will replace him and I will speak in Dutch.
Heel veel dank aan beide sprekers voor hun hele goede en gedegen bijdrage. Ik wil eigenlijk alleen maar focussen op één element, namelijk het element van de complexiteit. In het rapport van de Rekenkamer wordt aangegeven dat het onderbrengen van het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid bij het NRRP, dat dat tot vereenvoudiging leidt of kan leiden, met name voor de Europese Commissie. Dus op EU-niveau leidt dat tot vereenvoudiging volgens de Rekenkamer. Echter, zegt de Rekenkamer, wij voorzien dat het op het niveau van de betaalorganen en de managementautoriteiten en de ministeries, dat het juist veel complexer wordt.
Dus die vraag zou ik ook aan beide sprekers nog eens willen stellen. Kunt u daar nog wat meer over op ingaan? Is dat ook het beeld wat u heeft, dat we de zaak door het GLB onder te brengen bij het NRRP, dat we de zaak ook veel complexer maken, onder andere ook omdat je natuurlijk te maken gaat krijgen met allerlei afstemmingsproblemen met andere ministeries, met andere diensten? Misschien dat de sprekers daar nog even wat meer op zouden kunnen ingaan hoe ze dat zien. Dat vanuit mijn kant.
Next is Renew. Barry, you are there.
Barry Cowen
Yes, thanks Chair. Look, this discussion and this panel is talking about the implications of the new funding architecture and governance framework for farmers and national authorities. And it asks that we ask them to expand on opportunities and constraints. With a 20% reduction in funding, there are no new opportunities. There are merely constraints.
You can't ask farmers or the sector to do more for less with less.
So our objective, the Parliament's objective, the Council's objective, the governments within the Council's objective must be to seek to immediately close that budgetary gap. I have said previously, I'll say it again. That can be done so by virtue of the mid-term injection being front-loaded, that's 45 billion, and asking for the 48 billion rural development fund to be brought back into the CAP, but to be brought back in under the old metrics, traditional as they are, rather than the new cohesive ones which will be detrimental to the workings of the likes of Leader and other rural development companies as they presently are set up. So that just has to be done. And maybe then we can look at this architecture.
Maybe then we can look at the proposals. Because if I talk about, and people are talking about commonality here, that we have to have commonality. And maybe we've maxed out on commonality. Three, three and a half percent on generational renewal. We're talking about moving that up to six.
The Commissioner talks about, a report from this committee talks about ten, Norbert Lins talks about eight. If we settle between six and eight, if the environmental envelope is fixed at 35% as it is presently, well then you're into a commonality across the CAP of 43%. You know, no two countries are the same.
We saw that by virtue of the GAEC proposals in the last CAP and that brought it home to me. So maybe there is merit in national plans, but only if they recognize the place that agriculture has in that respective member state in relation to its percentage in employment, maybe well down as it is across the Union, and its percentage in relation to GDP, maybe well down, but making a huge contribution in relation to exports as we do in our country, where 90% of what we produce is exported, is done to the highest quality and standard and is returning profit by virtue of the new trade opportunities we have both within and outside the agreement, assuming of course that health and safety and food security is paramount in relation to all such deals.
But it's a key driver of rural areas, of rural development, of rural population, and it needs to be productive.
Input costs, of course, have been hammered in recent times because of geopolitical realities. So yes, we can compete with the competitive fund in relation to energy and fuel costs. But a nation must be in a position to co-finance to the tune of going beyond the initial constraints associated with the environmental envelope in order to ensure that newer generations follow innovation, follow technology, follow new practices. And opportunities exist for smaller, less productive, less arable holdings as well in order to maintain population in those areas and allow people have supplementary income that's meaningful and generates more than merely mental health capacity, but makes a viable contribution to a family's cost of living.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much. Next on our list is colleague Waitz from the Greens.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair. And I can shorten my intervention because I can very well side with what my colleague Barry Cowen was just expressing and also reiterating the question towards both speakers, who I thank for their interventions, whether you see massive additional bureaucratic burden coming up for you people, or let's say whether you see an additional burden in reinventing and restructuring the whole system due to the reform steps or the new proposals that are here on the table. And careful translators, I will change to German because ich möchte dem Herrn Hopfner die Rückmeldung geben, dass es selbst mir als geübtem Österreicher durchaus eine Herausforderung war, Ihren amtsdeutschen Ausführungen zu folgen. Und ich hoffe doch und ich vertraue sehr auf die Qualifikation unserer Übersetzer und Übersetzerinnen, dass sie das auch übersetzen konnten.
Und ich hoffe doch und ich vertraue sehr auf die Qualifikation unserer Übersetzer und Übersetzerinnen, dass sie das auch übersetzen konnten, aber diese Rückmeldung möchte ich Ihnen geben und eben auch ganz genau die Frage: Wie sehen Sie den zusätzlichen Aufwand in Zukunft?
Und eine zweite Frage auch an beide Redner und Rednerinnen, ja, der Zeitablauf, ne? Jetzt wir machen jetzt unsere Abänderungsanträge, wir beginnen im Herbst zu verhandeln. Wir sollten, sagen wir mal, es funktioniert im November oder Dezember zu einer Abstimmung hier im Ausschuss kommen. Sagen wir, wir schaffen es sogar bis Februar im Plenum eine Abstimmung zu haben. Dann müssen wir noch in den Trilog und dann müssen noch die Mitgliedstaaten ihre Pläne einreichen und die müssen dann noch von der Kommission notifiziert werden.
Und dann sind wir längst über den Beginn des Jahres 28 hinaus. Sehen Sie das auch so, dass diese voraussichtliche Zeit, die wir brauchen werden, das wird sich mit Beginn 28 höchst schwer nur ausgehen? Wäre es nicht sinnvoller und auch fairer gegenüber Ihnen und allen anderen Institutionen in den Mitgliedsländern, wenn von unserer Seite Parlament, Kommission und Rat auch eine klare Ansage kommt, dass es ein Übergangsjahr geben wird im Jahr 28 und deshalb auch die notwendige Zeit da ist, um eine ordentlichere Reform auf die Beine zu stellen und auch eine ordentliche Umsetzung? Da würde mich sehr interessieren, wie Sie das sehen. Herzlichen Dank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much. It's good to mention that we have special guests here today, guests from the invited by MEP Nacho Sánchez Amor. A warm welcome to you. Nice to meet you here in our give them a warm applause. Next on our speaker is Luke Flanagan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thanks very much. I'd also like to welcome members of the Irish Nature and Hill Farmers Association here today. You're also deserve a clap.
I don't really have any questions for the last speakers other than to say that you pretty much confirmed what we already knew. It confirms to me that simplification isn't that simple to do. The last CAP, the headline title for it was, everyone seems to forget, was simplification. That's what we were sold the last one on. So simplification obviously isn't that simple after all.
And the only simplification we are seeing is for maybe for the Commission. It's not so simple for national authorities.
And we basically, we don't have enough money. And I have to say, you know, up until now I was hearing, well, you know, it isn't only 295 billion and Barry you've suggested extra that can be put in and that would be good. But there was always this suggestion, well, you can get more money from other funds. And what worries me about what the Commission said earlier was it was said, well, you know, farmers will also benefit from roads and benefit from different things that are happening in the region. We already benefited from that.
Where I come from, when we had a bigger CAP budget, we already benefited from European Social Fund, we benefited from cohesion funds.
Farmers benefited from that. But they didn't have money taken off them so we could then say they benefited from it. So there is a net loss. There definitely is a net loss. So we've got to find money where we couldn't find money before and one of those options are degressivity and capping.
And the Commission made an interesting point in relation to the percentage of farmers that would be affected. I'm wondering is there a figure, and I'm trying to calculate it for Ireland at the moment, is there a figure there available for how much money will be available to redistribute if we went purely exactly for what the Commission are talking about and degressivity and capping, allowing also for the fact that individual member states will count labor units, others won't, ones that did it the previous time. Is there a figure available there on that? And also in relation to less developed regions, I understand, yeah, it would be unfair let's say if a country like Ireland could put more money to co-fund.
But I come from an area that isn't classified as a less developed region, it's actually classified as the most developed region, but farmers in our region do not have access to all this money that's in our region. And as a result of being classified as a well-developed region, we don't get access, sorry, I'll finish on this, to the 218 billion. How do we solve that problem? Because while my region is rich, the people and the farmers in the region aren't. So how do we fill that gap?
Bert-Jan Ruissen
So thank you very much. We are already running out a bit of time, to be honest. So next is ESN. Do we have somebody from the ESN? Yes, may I give you the floor, two minutes.
Arno Bausemer
Ja, vielen Dank Herr Vorsitzender. Also ich bin sehr irritiert darüber, dass die Kommission offenbar weiter daran festhält, hier große landwirtschaftliche Betriebe gegen kleine Landwirte auszuspielen. Diese Methodik der Degression und der Kappung, wie das vorhin schon von der Vertreterin so dargestellt wurde, angeblich wären nur 96 % der Landwirte in Europa betroffen, kann ich so nicht mitgehen. Ich möchte Sie mal mitnehmen in meine ostdeutsche Heimat.
Ich möchte mal das Bundesland Sachsen hervorheben. Sachsen ist ein Bundesland mit 4 Millionen Einwohnern in der Mitte Deutschlands. Und dort ist es so, dass Degression und Kappung dort 1.400 Betriebe betreffen würde. Diese Betriebe sind 20 % der Gesamtbetriebe in Sachsen, die betroffen wären, bewirtschaften aber 80 % der Fläche, halten 80 % der Tiere und das mit Wichtigste, haben 80 % aller landwirtschaftlichen Arbeitskräfte. Die wären also davon definitiv betroffen.
Deswegen ist diese Verniedlichung von 96 % etwas fehlgeleitet.
Ich würde gerne die Referenten gerne fragen, wie sie das sehen, ob sie diese Mitarbeiter in Sachsen beispielsweise oder auch in Sachsen-Anhalt, in Mecklenburg und Thüringen, in Brandenburg, auch in Berlin, ob sie die einfach opfern wollen aufgrund dieser sozialistischen Planspiele hier, Stichwort Robin Hood, gibt den Kleinen, nimm es den Großen. Das funktioniert nicht, das macht unsere Landwirtschaft kaputt. Und vor allem, ich möchte auch noch mal sagen, wenn man so eine Kappung oder Degression macht, dann sollte man das mit den Betrieben machen, die nur Flächen einfach halten. Diejenigen, die Flächen bewirtschaften, dürfen nicht bestraft werden. Hier muss weiterhin gelten, jeder Hektar muss gleich behandelt werden, egal ob ein Betrieb 10 Hektar hat oder vielleicht 1500.
Wir brauchen auch die Großbetriebe für die Ernährungssicherheit. Die können wir nicht einfach darstellen, als wenn das irgendwie jetzt die großen Geldverdiener wären. Hier arbeiten eben auch viele sozialversicherungsbeschäftigte und hier sind diese Beihilfen auch eine Stütze, um diese Betriebe am Leben zu halten.
Wenn man die Betriebe haben will, darf man diese GAP so nicht beschließen. Vielen Dank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much. This was the round of shadow rapporteurs. Is someone from the GUE/NGL? Yes, Mrs. Hazekamp, just one minute. Yes, very short.
Céline Imart
Merci beaucoup. Thank you, President, and sorry to be late there. Je m'exprimerai en français et ma question concernera le cadre de performance unique que la Commission souhaite appliquer, sur lequel nous avons de véritables interrogations en termes de simplification.
On ne peut pas plaquer sur la PAC un modèle administratif générique inadapté à ses réalités et qui peut générer une complexité accrue. Donc je souhaite aujourd'hui interroger la Commission sur la simplification réelle, que ce soit au niveau de la conditionnalité ou au niveau du cadre de performance qui pourra réellement arriver sur les exploitations. Merci.
Marta Wcisło
Dziękuję bardzo, będę mówić po polsku. I will be speaking Polish. Na wstępie przepraszam za spóźnienie, ale Komisja ENVI głosowania.
Szanowni państwo, przysłuchuję się tej dyskusji, znam ten dokument i chciałabym poruszyć szybko dwie kwestie. Po pierwsze, nowy WPR jest ogromną szansą, ale też stwarza wiele pytań. Mówimy dużo o uproszczeniach i chciałabym powiedzieć, że no rolnicy i administracja krajowa potrzebują jasnych zasad oraz czytelnego podziału między regionalnymi zapisami zawartymi w dotychczasowych WPR-ach a narodowymi, regionalnymi planami państwowymi. I to jest moje pierwsze pytanie, czy będzie absolutnie tutaj to bardziej skonkretyzowane.
I drugie pytanie. Szanowni państwo, rolnicy potrzebują, zwłaszcza lokalni, konkretnych działań i nie możemy stawiać i opierać się tylko na podstawowej działalności rolniczej. Ogromną rolę dziś w rolnictwie stanowi przetwórstwo rolne i to jest ogromna szansa dla rolników.
Mówię o tym nieprzypadkowo, ponieważ mój kraj, Polska, mierzył się jeszcze niedawno z ogromnym problemem napływu owoców miękkich, już przetworzonych, z państw spoza Unii Europejskiej. Myślę tutaj o krajach ze wschodu i dlatego potrzebne są jasne, czytelne zasady.
Marta Wcisło
Chciałam zapytać, czy Komisja przewiduje w tym zakresie jakieś konkretne rozwiązania, rozszerzenie WPR-u także o przetwórstwo rolno-spożywcze. Dziękuję.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Okay, thank you very much. Now we give the floor to the speakers for, and I would like to give them the opportunity to answer the questions. So we start with Mr. Hofner.
You both have three minutes each. Mr. Hoffner, you have the floor.
Markus Höfner
Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Ich kann mich glaube ich sehr kurz halten. Es sind im Wesentlichen zwei Themen, auf die ich hier in der Beantwortung eingehen möchte. Die Fragen von Ihnen, Herr Vorsitzender, und von Abgeordneten Waitz betreffend, wo tatsächlich die zusätzliche Bürokratie entsteht.
Ich stimme mit der Kommission überein, dass wir, was das Instrumentarium betrifft, hier eine gute, im Wesentlichen eine gute Kontinuität schaffen werden für die GAP. Insofern sind auch die Anforderungen an die Maßnahmen derzeit von europäischer Ebene her jetzt nicht wesentlich anders. Davon ausnehmen möchte ich das Do No Significant Harm Principle, das heute in der Diskussion im Panel 1 auch schon angesprochen wurde. Hier gibt's möglicherweise tatsächlich sehr weitgehende Erfordernisse, die wir derzeit noch gar nicht im Detail kennen. Aber das Hauptelement der zusätzlichen Bürokratie ist durchaus die Integration in den NRRP und die Abstimmung mit den einzelnen Playern und Behörden im Mitgliedstaat und auch das Aufbauen von neuen Strukturen.
Das führt wirklich zu zusätzlichem Aufwand. Ich hab's erwähnt, wir sehen das bereits jetzt im Legislativprozess, dass es sehr anstrengend ist und sehr aufwendig ist, hier einheitliche Positionen zustande zu bringen, die wir dann im Rat auch vertreten können. Das zweite Thema auch von Herrn Abgeordneten Waitz.
Ja, die Sprachen Rat und Parlament sind nicht immer dieselben, aber ich bin sehr froh, dass ich heute auch bei dieser Session dabei sein kann. Zu den Übergangsjahren ist es so, dass es im Rat sehr viele Mitgliedstaaten gibt, darunter auch Österreich, die sehen, dass das zeitlich sehr schwierig wird und dass Übergangsbestimmungen erforderlich sind. Deshalb ist im Ratsmandat für eine Reihe von Interventionen auch bereits vorgesehen, dass im Jahr 2028 noch die Bestimmungen der bestehenden Verordnung fortgeführt werden können. Wir als Österreich sind der Meinung, dass diese Bestimmungen für alle Interventionen angewandt werden sollten, sprich ein komplettes Übergangsjahr erforderlich sein wird. Das waren die beiden Punkte, Herr Vorsitzender, vielen Dank.
Silvia Capdevila Montes
Bueno, sobre el tema que se ha preguntado de complejidad, de si hay una mayor complejidad, efectivamente la mayor complejidad en principio, a priori, dependerá de cómo los Estados miembros apliquemos esta política. Desde un punto de vista de, digamos, de organismo que tiene que aplicar y que tiene que pagar estas ayudas, nosotros sí que vemos que en el momento que se establecen más eslabones intermedios la complejidad aumenta, porque vamos a tener obligatoriamente que coordinarnos y que, digamos, reportar y probablemente perder esa información técnica que ahora recibimos de primera mano y que en el nuevo sistema, con este establecimiento de eslabones o de autoridades intermedias que ahora mismo no existen, pues tenemos miedo de perder parte de la información o parte del reporte que nos venga.
Muchas gracias.
Silvia Capdevila Montes
También y sobre la experiencia adquirida en el actual plan estratégico de la PAC, se aseguró que iba a ser un plan estratégico dirigido con el objetivo principal de la simplificación y la realidad que nos hemos encontrado en este periodo es que hemos tenido una doble capa de control. Se ha mantenido los controles del periodo anterior y tenemos un nuevo sistema de control. Es decir, tenemos doble complejidad desde ese punto de vista.
Y ahora mismo nada indica que esto se vaya a solucionar o se vaya a simplificar en el próximo periodo, sino que podría ocurrir exactamente lo contrario, que se complejizara más incluso porque existiesen más requisitos de control de cumplimiento. Lo vemos con el cumplimiento de outputs y el cumplimiento de hitos y de metas.
Entonces, por eso en mi intervención hablaba de aprender de las o de de tener en cuenta las lecciones aprendidas que ya tuvimos con la eliminación de determinados elementos de la actual política agrícola común que no han funcionado y que en la revisión que se hizo en el 24 se se retiraron por su excesiva excesiva complejidad. Y en cuanto a los tiempos, también si nos retrotraemos al tiempo que se necesitó para aplicar y para poner en funcionamiento el plan estratégico actual de la PAC, también vemos que ahora mismo estamos nos falta un año como mínimo. Porque tendríamos que estar ya en el 26 trabajando activamente en la elaboración del plan nacional y ver cómo se integran los distintos capítulos, quién es la autoridad de gestión del plan nacional y demás.
Y nosotros, y creo que nuestros colegas austriacos han dicho lo mismo, no hemos todavía ni empezado porque no tenemos una información ni una reglamentación clara. Entonces, en este sentido, para nosotros como autoridades de gestión de los de los pagos de las de los fondos europeos destinados a la PAC, entendemos que la propuesta ahora mismo no parece que simplifique, sino que nos complica.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your very clear answers and I would like to thank both panelists for an excellent contribution. Now I would like to move to our representative from the from the Commission, DG AGRI.
I would like to give you the opportunity to reflect a bit on what you just heard.
Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. For the sake of efficiency and time, maybe I will not repeat what I already said on the budget.
I will not also further extend on the synergies that this new architecture is bringing. So it is true that it was possible already to combine different tools, but here the plan will allow to integrate it from the outset into, you know, an approach that is tailored to the needs of the territories, and the rulebook will be simpler because this will be a single rulebook. So there are here some advantages. And of course, I'm just talking about the NRP, but you could also see the synergies with other fundings, and here I'm thinking about the European Competitiveness Fund, which will be not only for the farmers, but also for the processing industry in particular.
I will focus on the new architecture because many of you have also mentioned that you see it very new and very complex both for farmers and Member States. I will challenge the fact that this will create particular difficulties, complexity, over-administrative burden for the farmers. That I would challenge. I will not underestimate obviously the impact it can have for Member States' authorities. And we are already working with Member States' authorities.
Every new CAP is a challenge for Member States' authorities. I'm not talking about the farmers but also for Member States' authorities.
I've been implementing the CAP for several years and it is true that at national this is a challenge. But, there is a big but, which is if you look at the features of the next CAP, I think we can safely say that we have been building on the current CAP. And let me illustrate that with a couple of these characteristic features of the CAP. The CAP strategic plans were already there, so a strategic planning, so it's not new to us. To other policies this might be new, but for us it is not new, where we had bundled together the two pillars, which will continue.
We've learned also from the experience of the current CAP that amending the plan has been tedious and laborious. So now we are only going to focus on amendments which are strategic and not, you know, less important. So basically there will be no need to go at EU level to have approved the amendment if they are not strategic. The instruments are the same and improved, as I already said.
And also to refer to the question from Mrs. Imar on the conditionality, I think it is important that here again we have learned the lessons from the current CAP, removing the very detailed rules at EU level which were integrated into the GAECs. And while keeping the objective of the GAECs on soil, water, protecting pasture, and making sure that we have a positive impact of farming on agriculture, we leave the Member States define the protective practices so that it's tailored to the needs of the territories and the farmers. So here, simplification. The partnership principle is at the core of the national and regional partnership.
It used to be also in the CAP. Member States, regions, and stakeholders, the relevant stakeholders, our stakeholders in the farming and the food sector, will continue to play a key role. The delivery of the performance is also remains mostly unchanged. Why am I saying that is that we have, we used to have, we still have a performance-based policy, which is output-based. And this will continue because most of our interventions, except investment, will remain output-based and not target and milestone-based.
Governance and coordination, and to also come back to the point of both Silvia and Marcus, governance and coordination will not be significantly changed. The coordinating authorities will remain. Administration, control and assurance, the single audit principle will remain. And for the monitoring and reporting, we will have common indicators. So, sorry for the boring list, but just to say that we are familiar with this already in the CAP.
What makes a difference, of course, is that we are part of a bigger plan. That is true.
But we are used to all the elements I have listed. Let me say that we presented early this year to this house a report where we had assessed, and some of you might remember, where we had assessed how the new delivery model for the CAP has worked. And I invite you to read it again because there you will find many of the elements that I have mentioned, meaning we've used that to improve the current CAP, the next CAP, sorry.
And let me also finish saying that on the implementation, though of course we remain prudent because we need to see what will be the final result of the co-legislative process, we have started to work with the Member States on many elements, including the administrative, the IT systems and so on and so forth, to make sure that we timely deliver. An important point of course will be, and that is a lesson we've learned, is to leave sufficient time to the Member States also to be prepared so that, you know, when the new CAP enters into force, all the tools, the system and the clarity for the farmers are available. Thank you very much.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much for your, for your explanation and reflection.
I would like to conclude this meeting in my mother tongue, in Dutch. En om te beginnen wil ik daar de tolken hartelijk dank zeggen voor hun ondersteuning, maar ook voor hun flexibiliteit, want ze hebben ons tenslotte vijf minuten extra gegeven, waarvoor dank. Maar ook heel veel dank aan de panelleden en aan de collega's. We hebben ontzettend veel weer meegekregen en geleerd vandaag. Het was erg nuttig om zowel de input te krijgen vanuit de agrarische sector, maar ook vanuit de instanties die te maken hebben met het beheer van de landbouwgelden.
Dank voor al die input. Ik wens u nog een fijne dag en graag tot een volgende keer. Dank.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.