March 7^th, 2022

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought war back to European soil, and its dramatic consequences are unfolding under our eyes.

Ukraine and Russia are world top exporters of grains – wheat, maize, sunflower. The war is blocking exports from the Black Sea, where over 10 million tons of grain can no longer feed world markets. What will happen to the next campaign is anyone’s guess. The effects are already being felt, as grain prices attain ever higher levels.

EU consumers will have to pay more for their food basket, on top of the recent sprawling inflationary pressures. EU meat producers are paying more to feed their livestock. In parts of the Middle-East and Africa the inflation in grain prices is going to afflict legions of poor dwellers.

The war brings pain, but it is also a wake-up call to the EU. It is by now crystal clear to Europeans that they have to improve their energy sovereignty, and be less dependent on imports from Russia.

It should also be crystal clear that the EU should ensure its food sovereignty. Energy and food independence are crucial strategic pillars. We should not put our food supplies in danger, and we should be concerned that neighbors countries and poor countries in Africa do not face starvation.  

This should be a wake-up call to the Commission. The Commission proposals on the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies run frontally counter our food sovereignty and world food security. All the studies and analysis done on the proposals, including the one done by the Commission itself, show staggering results: supply is reduced by more than 10-15% in the key sectors, cereals, oilseeds, beef, dairy cows; over 15% in pork and poultry, and over 5% in vegetables and permanent crops. All the analysis published show similar results, leaving little doubt that we would face a sharp policy self-inflicted contraction of agriculture in the EU.

The EU shouldn’t pursue a policy that reduces its agriculture production when globalization and security of supplies are challenged, and world demand for food and feed is increasing as the world population increases. 

The time has come for the Commission to fundamentally revise its proposals.

Fighting climate change and protecting the environment are priorities that we share. The issue we have is not on implementing policies that go in that direction. The issue is that the Commission proposed policies would have a limited beneficial impact on the environment, as production would go up elsewhere to compensate for the contraction in the EU, with little if any climatic or environmental concerns, whilst having a large negative impact on our food production and increasing inflation.

There are alternative policies that would protect the environment and fight climate change, and increase our production potential at the same time. The key is to foster the right investments in order to achieve sustainable productivity growth. It is doable, it is being proven right, but we need to scale up the efforts in the EU.

The Commission should take stock of the evaluations of its ill-conceived proposals, and change tack without delay. The Commission should not make any specific legislative proposals before revising its copy.

Farm Europe is involved in a Horizon 2020 research program, called ‘Plastic in Agricultural Production: Impacts, Life-cycle and LONg-term Sustainability’ (PAPILLONS), which has been launched to explore the impacts of micro-nano plastics in agricultural soils, which represent a key issue for the future of the sustainability and competitiveness of European agriculture. This project gathers universities, research institutes and think tanks.

To learn more about the project itself, please click on the link attached here: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101000210 

(The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101000210)

The PAPILLONS team is committed to deliver knowledge and data on the behaviour of agricultural plastic fragments in the form of micro- and possibly nano-plastic in agricultural soils and on the potential long-term effects this pollution may have on the farm soil ecosystem. For this, PAPILLONS will conduct (among other types of experimental activity) a large field-scale experiment taking place simultaneously in 3 regions of Europe. This will be carried out between 2022 and 2023. The aim of this experiment is to study the potential effects of mulching film residues on soil ecosystems and their agricultural production.

This call is intended to openly disclose relevant information with the stakeholders of the PAPILLONS project with respect to the above mentioned field experiment, and offer the stakeholders the opportunity to give feedback on the exposure scenario and the treatment levels. By presenting the experimental design in advance, PAPILLONS offers stakeholders the possibility of commenting and providing feedback and ideas prior to execution. These will be considered if they contribute to add quality, meaningfulness and objectivity to the experiment, and if their implementation is technically and economically feasible.

For more information on the objective, background, context and scientific question behind the experiment please consult the attached document or visit our website to find the full document online and leave us a message with your feedback here.

For further information concerning the large field-scale experiment please contact papillons@niva.no

March 1st, 2022

Yesterday, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), published its scientific opinion on Tolerable Upper Intake Level of dietary sugars^[1], i.e. a maximum level of intake that would not harm the health of consumers, responding to the request of five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland & Norway). Upper levels (UL) have already been defined by EFSA for some micro^[2] & macro nutrients such as dietary fibres, fats, proteins, etc^[3]. 

In its opinion, EFSA argues that an upper level of intake for sugar could not be defined (as a specific threshold), but it recommends to keep the sugar intake “as low as possible”. This formulation encounters at least two main fallouts: 

Firstly, it allows for the interpretation that there is no safe level of sugar intake, thus, sugar has to be avoided at any cost, no matter of the quantity, which is a breach of the basic good sense nutrition principle of a balance diet. EFSA underlines that the analysed studies and systemic reviews on the relation of sugar on health converge on an assumed linear correlation, and not an “S” shape curve: an upper level, therefore a safe area, cannot be determined.

Nevertheless, EFSA itself states in its scientific opinion that “at levels of added and free sugars intake below 10E% uncertainty is high regarding the shape and direction of the relationships between added and free sugars intake and the risk of metabolic diseases”. This statement should clear out any doubts on the fact that scientific evidence finds that below a certain -indicative- threshold of sugary total energy intake, the negative health effects cannot be directly linked to sugar, but are the outcome of many factors. This statement contradicts the linear approach and shows ultimately, that at this stage, in issuing the statement “as low as possible”, the institution is making politics rather than science, issuing communication headlines rather than providing guidelines for health authorities. 

Communication headlines rather than health guidelines

Secondly, EFSA formulation does not give any concrete guidelines for national authorities for the update of dietary guidelines, thus the definition of nutrient profiles. After having analysed dozens of scientific publications and reviews on the topic, updated its food database (Foodex2), consulted with stakeholders, “as low as possible” is the easy way out and does not help to face growing of health problems both in European adults and children.

Other institutions (international and national bodies) managed to already set their upper limits -which, as the EFSA reminds, is not a target that we should aim to, but rather a maximum threshold above which health risks increase. 

Moreover, EFSA itself already defined some specific thresholds and safe ranges for other nutrients such as salt^[4](2.0 g/day of sodium), fats^[5] (a daily intake that ranges from 20% to 35% of energy), carbohydrates (ranges from 45 to 60% of total energies), and dietary fibres (25g/day)^[6] using a similar methodology of the one used for its analysis on sugar. 

Further work by EFSA needed 

As a result, EFSA’s statement on sugar UL does not define specific safety levels of sugar intakes. This may lead public health authorities (in charge of developing dietary guidelines), food processors and consumers (who want to improve their products & health) to confusion. Therefore, we consider EFSA should address this point and deepen its work on this issue. This is important considering that the publication of the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on Upper Tolerable Intakes of sugars might be useful in the context of the revision of the FIC regulation (Food Information to Consumer). But at this stage, it is simply impossible to use it as a foundation for a sound and well-informed public health policy.  

Background

The general approach for EFSA to establish a UL includes the analysis of wide datasets and scientific literature after which a “S-shape” graph (such as the one on the side) is used to graphically expose the correlation between the nutrient intake and the health risks. As it can be seen, there is a “safe range” within which the amounts of nutrient intake are considered safe; beyond this range, negative health effects will start to arise according to the scientific literature. The Upper Level corresponds to the last amount of nutrient intake above which negative health effects start to manifest. 

The safe range varies according to the nutrient and it is calculated as a weighted average of the dataset and scientific literature on the subject. For dietary sugars, EFSA points out that such curve is impossible to make because the correlation is assumed to be linear at this stage, thus, a safe range cannot be determined. But data from 0 – 10 E% of intake is not sufficient (highly uncertain) to support this linear conclusion.

^[1] https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074

^[2] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/UL_Summary_tables.pdf

^[3] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2017_09_DRVs_summary_report.pdf

^[4] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5778

^[5] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/1461

^[6] https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/1462

Strategic priorities

In Poland, rural and agricultural areas occupy 85% and 52% of the country, respectively. Rural areas are inhabited by approximately 15 million people, 38% of Poland’s total population. There are approximately 1.4 million farms throughout the country. The main sectors are dairy, cereals, pigs, poultry and horticulture. Agriculture in Poland is characterized by a large share of farms of small economic size and there are significant income disparities. The Polish Strategic Plan of the Common Agricultural Policy will support sustainable development of farms, the processing sector and improvement of living and working conditions in small rural areas. The NSP will support as well, sustainable, climate and environmentally friendly farming methods that protect water, soil and air, and biodiversity. It will encourage sustainable energy production and use. Economic diversity will be enhanced, including the bioeconomy. Scientific and innovative solutions, including digital solutions, will be disseminated and implemented, removing barriers to development in rural areas.

The budget for the strategic plan in Poland is more than €25 billion for 2023-2027, of which more than €17 billion is allocated to direct payments after the transfer of 30% from the second pillar. The allocation of the second pillar is about 8 billion euros. Since the “tools that improve farmers’ income are direct payments”, the Polish government decided to strengthen it by transferring funds from Pillar II to Pillar I.

Basic Income Support and Redistributive Payment

Approximately €8 Billion is planned for Basic income support for 2023-2027 which accounts for 47.36% of the direct payment envelope.

Estimated rate is approx. 118 EUR/ha. 

Payment reduction (capping) will not be applied. 

In the case of Poland, priority in supporting agricultural activity under the Strategic Plan is given to small and medium-sized farms with an area of up to 25-30 hectares. Therefore, the redistributive payment is intended for farms with an area of up to 50 hectares, but support will be paid up to a maximum of 30 hectares – i.e. farms with an area of 30 hectares will benefit most (in terms of average payment per hectare on a farm) from this type of payment. A total of approximately 2 billion euros is planned for the redistributive payment between 2023 and 2027, representing 11.57% of the direct payments envelope. Estimated rate approx. 44 EUR/ha. Maximum rate approx. 48.5 EUR/ha.

The green architecture 

The green architecture of the Polish NSP establishes a number of measures in both pillars to encourage farmers to adopt pro-environmental farming practices. Most significantly, in Pillar I, eco-schemes are voluntary payment schemes for farmers who implement environmentally and climate beneficial practices that go beyond the requirements established by cross-compliance. This tool is designed to realize environmental benefits to the greatest extent possible, while encouraging farmers to actively engage in the implementation of environmental and climate protection measures.

In the Polish NSP, it is estimated the payment values of each eco-scheme per hectare, through an estimate of how many farmers will be interested to join each eco-scheme. Obviously, the figure may change depending on the number of adherents. In the Polish NSP, the planned eco-schemes are:

– Mixing manure on arable land within 12 hours of application Estimated rate: 89,44 Euro/ha.

– Application of liquid manure by methods other than splashing Estimated rate: 65,39 Euro/ha.

–Maintenance of mid-field afforestation Estimated rate: 560,45 Euro/ha.

-Maintenance of agro-forestry systems It is estimated that approximately 3.9 thousand ha will be covered by the support.

-Simplified farming system The aim of this eco-scheme is to support conservation tillage, to preserve natural resources while achieving satisfactory yields. Estimated rate: 125.62 Euro/ha.

-Winter catch crops/intercrops Estimated rate: 176,63 Euro/ha.

-Water retention on permanent grassland Estimated rate: 63,15 Euro/ha.

– 7% of the farm’s land to non-productive areas Estimated rate: 19,10 Euro/ha.

-Organic farming (Different estimated rates depending of crops, for example: Berry crops, 560,67 EUR/ha, Extensive orchard crops: 297.98 EUR/ha).

-Diversified cropping pattern Estimated rate: 76,18 Euro/ha.

– System of Integrated Plant Production Estimated rate: 292,13 Euro/ha.

-Development of and adherence to a fertilization plan Estimated Rate 28,99 Euro/ha.

-Biological crop protection Estimated rate: 89,89 Euro/ha

-Areas with melliferous plants Estimated rate: 269,21 Euro/ha.

 -Animal Welfare Estimated rate varies greatly depending on practices and animal

–Density of grassland animals Estimated rate: 188,31 Euro/ha.

Pillar II multi-year pro-environmental commitments are the most ambitious element of the Polish CAP’s green architecture. The requirements for these actions go beyond cross-compliance and relevant national and EU legislation and do not overlap with the range of practices covered by ecoschemes. They will be voluntary for the farmer.

The planned multi-year agro-climatic-environmental interventions are, among others: Protection of valuable habitats and endangered species in Natura 2000 areas ; Preservation of valuable habitats and endangered species outside Natura 2000 areas ; Extensive use of meadows and pastures in Natura 2000 areas ; Preservation of orchards of traditional varieties of fruit trees ; Multi-year flower strips; Conservation of plant genetic resources in agriculture,Conservation of endangered animal genetic resources in agriculture ; Young orchards of traditional varieties. Other interventions that will meet environmental and climate objectives will be the interventions on forests and woodlands. These will be investments that help mitigate climate change and maintain and improve the ecological stability of forest areas, linking, among other things, fragmented forest complexes into compact and continuous landscape structures, the so-called ecological corridors. The creation of afforestation, tree plantations, and agroforestry systems will have a significant impact on water retention in the soil profile and improved water quality. It will also contribute to increased biodiversity in rural areas, as trees and shrubs provide habitat for many organisms and a food base for, for example, birds and pollinating insects. 

Coupled payment

The Polish NSP provides the maximum rate for coupled payments, which is 15%. The sectors that will receive the coupled payment are: Cow; young cattle; sheep; goat; sugar beet; hops; flax; fibre hemp; strawberries; tomatoes; starch potatoes; fodder crops; grain legumes.

Young farmers

The strategic plan provides investment support for start-ups under Pillar 2 and up to five years of support for young farmers’ farm acreage under Pillar 1. 

Although the age structure of farmers in Poland is favorable compared to other EU member states, the share of young farmers in the total number of farm managers is declining, as in other EU member states. A total of approximately €185.3 million is planned for Pillar I payments between 2023 and 2027, representing 1.07% of the direct payments envelope.

Strategic priorities

The French NSP seeks to improve the sustainable competitiveness of the agriculture sectors, the creation of value, the resilience of farms and the sobriety of inputs in the service of food security.

Basic income support will be distributed to beneficiaries with payment entitlements in a more equitable manner, with a progressive convergence reaching 90% by 2026. France has chosen to target support to sectors in difficulty, which are essential to the resilience of the territories. Thus, 15% of direct payments are devoted to coupled aids, mainly in the livestock sector, as well as a significant increase in the envelope devoted to protein crops to increase the autonomy. The ICHN is maintained and remains targeted on the productions most adapted to territories with handicaps, including mountains, namely grassland breeding.

In terms of the environment, the NSP is in line with European trajectories. It will represent 25% of direct aid as of 2023 and environmental expenditure in the 2nd pillar will exceed 40%. The environmental architecture aims to reduce the specialization and intensification of production, by encouraging diversification of crop production and the search for synergies between livestock and crops, favorable to resilience and sobriety in inputs. Reinforced cross-compliance and the eco-regime aim at a large-scale implementation of practices favorable to climate control, protection of natural resources and biodiversity.

At the territorial and social level, to meet the challenge of generational renewal, the funds dedicated to the installation of young farmers are strengthened, with a total of just over €200 millions mobilized for support dedicated to young farmers on both pillars.

The green architecture 

Eco-schemes are new schemes that will account for at least 25 percent of the total allocation of Pillar I support. Eco-schemes impose practices on farmers that go beyond cross-compliance requirements, which already include green payment criteria, and thus correspond to a higher level of environmental ambition than the current green payment. 

In French NSP, 1.684 billion per year (8.420 billion for the entire 2023-2027 programming period) are allocated for the eco-scheme. 

The eco-scheme as conceived in the French NSP is intended to support as many farmers as possible in their transition, with the aim of massively increasing agro-ecological practices throughout the country, in an inclusive system. 

The aid is a decoupled payment of a fixed amount at the national level paid on all eligible hectares of the farm and is divided into three non-cumulative access channels and a supplement (“hedge bonus”) that can be cumulated with the access channel for practices or environmental certification: 

– the “practices” pathway is for farmers who commit to agroecological practices on all areas of the farm that are conducive to pesticide reduction, biodiversity and carbon storage. The requirements in terms of practices are different for arable crops, permanent grassland and perennial crops and must be applied to the entire area of the farm; 

– the “environmental certification” pathway is aimed at farmers whose entire farm is certified as Organic or as High Environmental Value (HVE); 

– the “biodiversity-friendly elements” pathway targets farmers who maintain or create agro-ecological infrastructure or set aside land on their farms;

– the “hedge bonus” remunerates the presence of hedges and their sustainable management; this bonus can be combined with the practices or the certification pathway, allowing to improve the overall effect on biodiversity (association of hedges and crop mosaic, or hedges and grasslands, or hedges and biological land management). The presence of hedges is associated with a requirement for sustainable management of these hedges verified by a certification (e.g. the existing “Label Haie”). 

There are two levels of requirements for each of the access routes: a basic level and a higher level for farmers who engage in more ambitious practices.

In addition to the eco-scheme, green architecture is based on Pillar II environmental measures, specifically agri-environmental and climate commitments (AECMs) and support for conversion to organic farming. Most of the AECMs need to be adapted at the local level. The level of ambition pursued by these measures is higher than that required in the practices of eco-scheme.

The budget for agri-environmental and climate measures is increased by +10 M€ to reach 260 M€ on average per year (compared to 250 M€ paid in 2019 and 2020).

The French NSP will contribute to the achievement of a target of at least 18% of French UAA in organic farming by 2027, i.e., nearly 4.8 million hectares of agricultural land, with the ambition of reaching the 25% targeted at the European level by 2030. 

To support this doubling of organic farming areas by 2027, an average of €340 million per year will be devoted to aid for conversion to organic farming which corresponds to an increase of €90 million per year compared to the €250 million per year paid in 2019 and 2020, which covered not only aid for conversion (€220 million) but also aid for maintenance (€30 million).

Coupled payment

In order to take into account the challenges and difficulties faced by certain sectors and to support the increase in areas cultivated with protein crops, with the objective of improving the protein autonomy of the French farm and thus reducing the dependence on protein imports, in particular soy, France devotes 15% of its direct aid to coupled aid, i.e. 5 billion euros. 

The budget devoted to coupled aid for plant proteins will increase by 15% as of 2023 (reaching 2.3% of direct payments) and then grow each year by 0.3% until it reaches a budget of €236.8 million in 2027, an increase of 75% (3.5% of direct payments). Over the whole of the future programming period, an additional €100 million will therefore be devoted to coupled aid for plant proteins compared to the current programming period.

Coupled support will go to: sheep; sheep for new producers; goats; cattle; calves under the mother’s milk; grain legumes and dehydrated fodder legumes or for seed production; fodder legumes in lowland and piedmont areas; fodder legumes in mountain areas; durum wheat; starch potato; rice; hop; grass seed; hemp; Ente plums for processing; Bigarreau cherries for processing; Williams pears for processing; Pavie peaches for processing; veg farming; tomatoes for processing; small ruminants in Corsica; cattle in Corsica.

Risk management

Support for risk management tools under the NSP is part of a dual perspective of continuity with 2014-2022 programming and strengthening of existing tools. 

Regarding climate risks, the NSP strengthens support for multi-risk crop insurance, with the aim of covering more farms and a larger agricultural area against these risks by 2027. The scheme is expected to increase from €156 million in EAFRD funding in 2023 to nearly €216 million in 2027, in anticipation of an increase in the number of insurance contracts in the coming years. 

The agricultural catastrophe scheme, a national solidarity instrument that covers climate risks considered uninsurable, will be profoundly revamped to allow for better coordination of the various instruments to compensate for losses caused by climate risks. 

Thus, the French government drafted a bill at the end of 2021 on the reform of multi-hazard climate insurance and the revision of the agricultural disaster system. This law is based on the principle of a three-tier risk management architecture (low, moderate and catastrophic). Moderate risks will be covered by the insurance system, whose contribution is still expected to be partially covered by the PSN, while catastrophic risks will be covered by national solidarity, paid by the State. To make it easier for the farmer to take on the risk, a one-stop shop for compensation is planned, regardless of the source of coverage. 

To encourage as many farmers as possible to take out insurance, compensation will be higher for insured farmers than for uninsured ones. In addition, the new system is expected to generate better protection against risks and adaptation to climate change on farms, particularly by developing individualized insurance pricing that takes into account the means of protection used by the farmer, and by providing strong incentives to propose and deploy insurance contracts with a deductible at the farm level, which will encourage more diversified, and therefore more resilient and cheaper farms in terms of inputs. 

With regard to health risks and environmental incidents, support for the National Agricultural Fund for the Mutualization of Health and Environmental Risks (FMSE), created in 2013, in the absence of an insurance market comparable to the one that exists for climate risks, will be continued, with potential changes related to the evolution of the categorization of health and phytosanitary risks at the European and national levels, the emergence of new diseases, and the articulation between state and fund intervention. Thus, the NSP provides for the mobilization of the EAFRD up to 1.5 million euros per year to finance compensation for losses that can be covered within this framework. 

Regarding income risks, an experiment of a common fund covering income variations (income stabilization tool) will be launched by the Grand-East region for the sugar beet sector. It should make it possible to appreciate for the first time the operation of a risk management tool that compensates for variations in margin, whether attributable to a climatic, health or environmental event or a change in the market. The Region has planned to dedicate 2 million euros of EAFRD funds to this project each year. 

Young farmers

The NSP reinforces the targeting effort undertaken in the current programming, by providing additional income support for young farmers up to 1.5% of the direct payment envelope (€101 million), compared to 1% today. This additional support represents half of the total effort requested of 3% of the NSP for young farmers. 

In order to no longer link this payment to the area of the installation and to no longer support installations on the largest exploited areas more than others, the additional income support for young farmers will now intervene in the form of a uniform flat-rate amount per farm (with the application of GAEC transparency), and always for a maximum support period of 5 years. The programmed amount of the lump sum is around 3885€ per farm per year, leading to a total of cumulated support over 5 years that should reach more than 19 400€ for beneficiaries between 2023 and 2027, compared to a cumulated amount of 12 500€ for 80% of beneficiaries between 2015 and 2020.

Internal convergence

The convergence choices will allow France to reach, via two successive stages in 2023 and 2025, more than 85% internal convergence of basic decoupled aid to income in 2026. In 2023, an intermediate ceiling will be introduced to fully finance a floor at 70% of the average value of 2023 entitlements; this ceiling should be around €1350 (value to be confirmed based on the actual situation in 2023). In 2025, the ceiling will be lowered to 1000€ per PBO and a floor of 85% of the target value will be introduced. Entitlements above the 2026 target value (evaluated at €129 in 2026) will be subject to a reduction of 50% of the difference with respect to this target value. However, in order not to destabilize farms that still benefit from a payment value per hectare that is much higher than the average value, in geographical areas and with very specific production models, sometimes intensive in terms of employment, a ceiling on individual losses greater than 30% has been introduced. However, this limitation of losses cannot lead to a payment right exceeding the ceiling value of 1000€. 

Thus, 96% of farms will benefit, from 2026 onwards, from payment rights between +/-10% of the average value (compared to 69% in 2019 and 29% in 2015). In other words, no farm should have payment entitlements whose value is less than 90% of the average (compared to 41% in 2015 and 21% in 2019), and 4% of farmers will retain payment entitlements whose value is greater than 110% of the average (compared to 10% in 2019 and 30% in 2015).

Pillar 2: Funding Allocation and Priorities

Thanks to the transfer of €2.742 billion from Pillar I to Pillar II (7,53%), France can count on €10 billion in the FEADER fund for the entire 2023-2027 programming period.

A large part of this budget, as much as 3.586 billion, is dedicated to the compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps (ICHN) as it plays an important role in reducing income disparities between territories. The ICHN is mainly targeted at livestock farming, and is aimed in particular at the most extensive farms by maintaining appropriate stocking rate ranges, corresponding to resilient, more autonomous livestock farming and a source of important environmental amenities: maintenance of permanent grasslands, maintenance of conditions favorable to biodiversity, carbon capture and well-being of the animals grazing there. 

Despite the reduction in the EAFRD funding rate provided for in the strategic plan regulation for this measure (65% of EAFRD mobilizable in 2023-2027 vs. 75% in 2015-2022), France guarantees to maintain the total envelope at €1.1 billion and undertakes to cover the additional cost of €100 million induced by the change in funding rate. The EAFRD thus freed up will make it possible to finance the increase in the budget for conversion to organic farming. 

Indeed, the FEADER resources for organic farming amount to a total of 980 million, leaving 1.832 billion for investments and 988 million for agro-environmental climate measures (AECMs).