No. 34 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy 26 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR Although the proposed CAP reform maintains a semblance of a European basis, which the European Parliament would be responsible for strengthening in future negotiations, the agricultural part of the draft NRPP regulation is no longer even an issue. That part is removed from the agricultural Under such a scheme, the Member State could act without restriction, considering the financing of the NRPP outside the CAP as a supplement to the national budget available for the current policy priorities of the bodies of the Council to become the responsibility of COREPER, with a clear objective of the Danish Presidency of the Council to try to reach a general agreement on this draft regulation by the end of December. Such a strategy would block negotiations within the Council on the architecture of the future CAP and of its key While the financial allocation for the NRPP outside the CAP decreases significantly, its use and distribution among measures will be subject to intense political pressure ... with the risk that shorttermpoliticacl onsiderations will override long-term economic and territorial development consideration.s government and, potentially, the regions. While the NRPP financial allocation outside the CAP decreases significantly, its use and distribution among measures will be subject to intense political pressure – since not everything can be financed – with the risk that short-term political considerations will override parameters, leaving the Council of Agriculture Ministers with practically only the conditions for the implementation by the CAP regulation of what had been decided for agriculture in the COREPER bodies. In the European Parliament, the agricultural aspect of this NRPP regulation would be divided between three committees (Agriculture, Regional Development and Budget), all with competence over its content. 27agriculturapl rogrammesof varyingscope, according to the priorities at the time of each government The Commission's proposal is that, for agriculture, the definition of measures, conditions of access, financing and priorities should be established by each Member State in its NRP plan, in more or less close association with the regions, in accordance with the political balance between the governments in office and the leaders of those regions. With regard to measures outside the CAP, such as LEADER, POSEI or measures relating to the school scheme, the Commission's proposal for a regulation allows any Member State that so wishes to start its policy from from scratch, without minimum or maximum funding limits, and with the option of continuing or discontinuing the aid currently in place. long-term economic and territorial development considerations. Investment, innovation, risk management, water strategy: key issues for the future of agricultural sectors at risk of not receiving funding Under the proposed new CAP, the co-financing required from Member States should increase by at least 30% to finance all environmental, investment, risk management, cooperation and training measures. In a tense national budgetary context, many Member States will find it advantageous to prioritise the financing of direct aid measures that do not have to be cofinanced (decoupled payments, coupled payments, flatrate aid for small farmers) in order to minimise the national financial effort required. The restriction that 43% of CAP funds must be linked to environmental actions that must be co-financed by at least 30% will put additional pressure on the use of the CAP envelopes, with the risk of leaving behind investment aid and risk management instruments, precisely the two measures that should be emblematic in preparing for the future.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==