No. 34 The future of the Common AgriculturaL Policy 38 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR to ensure that, at the very least, the current level of our agricultural budget is maintained. This will require increased political will and negotiating capacity on the part of national public and private decision-making centres. Another issue that has been widely debated concerns the new degressive income support based on eligible area that the In our case, it is important that, when drawing up the aforementioned Plan, we manage to add €2.4 biiolln to the €7.4billion allocated to the CAP ringfencing fundst,o ensure that, at the very least,he currentlevel of our agricultural budegt is maintained. This will require greater political will andnegotiating capacity on the part of national public and private decisionmaking centre.s Environmentalists have pointed out a number of risks with regard to the proposals contained in the new Green Architecture. A first risk identified is associated with the potential reduction in environmental ambition resulting from the fact that the EC proposals give each Member State greater flexibility in defining the new conditions. EC proposes to replace basic payments, redistributive payments and complementary payments for young farmers, the main characteristics of which I described earlier. This is a change that tends to link this type of decoupled payment more closely than at present both in terms of the farmers' income and in terms of the development of the regions where they are located, as well as the farmers' age and gender, which I believe to be overall positive. Furthermore, the effort to harmonise support levels and their degressivity in the different Member States may also contribute to reducing potential distortions in the functioning of the single agricultural market, which is to be welcomed. However, I consider the proposals for degressivity of the amount under discussion to be greatly exaggerated, as well as the corresponding capping and, above all, the fact that the valorisation of the labour factor has not been taken into account in establishing the level of support to be penalised. On the other hand, I welcome the decision to extend income-related support to more sectors, although its implementation may lead to greater conflict between the interests of future beneficiaries. The resolution of this issue will basically depend on national decision-making centres. This may be offset by the benefits that, in this context, may result from greater autonomy for a more appropriate response to national specificities. A second risk stems from the merging of eco-schemes and agri-environmental measures into a new single set of measures called Agri-Environmental and Climate Actions, and concerns a change in their funding. In fact, the EC proposal no longer provides for 100% payments from the EU budget, as is currently the case for eco-schemes, with all these types of payments now subject to a minimum national contribution rate of 30%, which is lower than the current rate. In this context, there is a risk that, for budgetary reasons, Member States will give priority to those interventions with 100% funding to the detriment of environmental and climate actions. These risks are further aggravated by the fact that no funds are pre-allocated to the actions of the new Green Architecture, which, combined with the worsening financing conditions, could make them even less attractive. On the other hand, the creation of incentives for the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices (payment for services and support for transition) that may not be linked to income losses or increased costs and may be rewarded by payments for maintenance and transition ecosystem services, represents, together with greater autonomy for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==