Farm Europe calls for an autonomous, truly common and future-proof CAP

Farm Europe intervened today at the ComAgri Public Hearing on a new funding structure for the CAP, reflecting on the consequences for farmers and national authorities. Against this backdrop, our Secretary General, Luc Vernet, welcomed the political ambition, widely shared within the European Parliament, in favour of an autonomous, common and well-funded agricultural policy. But translating this ambition into practice is complex and requires unprecedented coordination and political will.

While on the Council side, between Coreper and the SCA, certain key parameters — notably the definition of farmer — are not consistent, the most effective way to avoid contradicting approaches is to secure the autonomy of the CAP. A first step has been taken by the European Parliament, by transferring most of the key articles into the CAP regulation. But we must go further by creating an autonomous plan — not a simple chapter — with its own rules of design, validation and its performance framework. 

Autonomous performance indicators should be preserved. Sustainable and efficient agricultural production is an objective in itself; it should be recognised 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 “C” for “Common” risks, today, being replaced by the “C” for internal Competition. At high speed, the single market is turning into a battlefield, when agriculture should be a lever of collective sovereignty and geopolitical influence.

To avoid this, on the environmental side, a catalogue of measures is not enough: it does not avoid the risk of undermining the common rules. Rightly, Parliament calls for a clear baseline — but it must be given real, concrete legal force. 

Considerable work to simplify conditionality has been carried out over the past two years under the impetus of Commissioner Hansen and of the agricultural committee of the European Parliament. It should not be abandoned in favour of a “farm stewardship” which is not the end of conditionality, but a multi-speed conditionality. The diversity of our agricultures is not a matter of national flags: it exists everywhere, within our territories. It is no easier to reflect it at national level than at European level.

The “common” must also apply to the question of co-financing. Farm Europe regrets the absence of 100 % EU-funded measures for the environment and climate. And we also deplore the “at least 30 %” rule with no upper limit. To secure a level playing field, we call for a clear rule: 30 % co-financing, coupled to a “grandfathering” clause guaranteeing, in euros, the preservation of the current level to EU farmers.

On targeting “those who need it most” — an interesting but delicate concept — it is better to be factual rather than pointing out individual beneficiaries. Farm Europe has analysed, on the basis of paying-agency data, the impact on 5.5 million beneficiaries. Capping concerns, at most, 1 % of the CAP budget. Without even taking employment into account, it could seriously harm the viability of certain farms. As for degressivity, it would weigh above all on medium-sized farms, the backbone of our production: nearly 40 % are livestock farms, 35 % arable, and more than a quarter are in less-favoured areas. As in the previous reforms, other tools should be explored to guarantee the leverage effect of the CAP and to ensure that public money delivers tangible outcomes in terms of strategic autonomy and sustainability.

Parliament’s draft report reinstates a first pillar of non-cofinanced measures — basic support, coupled support — which are very important — and small farms — distinct from a cofinanced second pillar of rural development. What belongs to the common core of European policy must be 100 % funded by the Union.

Farm Europe asks that this logic be taken to its conclusion by extending it to climate and the environment. We propose renewed eco-schemes — “efficiency schemes” — which should fall under this first pillar: 100 % funded by the EU budget, written into a dedicated article. By placing competitiveness, production and sustainability on an equal footing, they would send the signal that economic performance and the environment do not stand in opposition.

The environment and climate are collective challenges; systematically co-financing these tools would seriously weaken the current programmes. Their funding risks falling by more than 60 %. Member States would be forced to arbitrate between optimising their co-financing, the environment, investment and risk management. Bad news for agriculture and for the credibility of the CAP.

Likewise, the €130-240 range for the DABIS is not adequate, since it does not integrate the current eco-schemes.

This same logic of common sovereignty applies to coupled support, a key tool for our livestock sector and our protein autonomy: we defend the 20 % ceiling, raised by 5 points, proposed by the Commission. It matches the ambition of preserving a capacity to produce across all territories, even where production costs are higher. The territorial dimension of the CAP should not be weakened but, on the contrary, strengthened.

Farm Europe also calls for giving every farmer, in every Member State, access to risk- and crisis-management tools. This should be the choice of farmers, rather than that of Member States. This direction is directly connected to an investment oriented CAP. 

These are a few key levers on which a balance between national flexibilities and clear European orientations would prevent the CAP from becoming an à-la-carte programme — preserving its political dimension, preserving the political role of the European Parliament in its capacity to steer a genuine project of shared agricultural sovereignty at European level, for efficient and competitive production.