No. 34 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy 66 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR m) New focus on farmers' mental health and work-life balance, with access to support services such as replacement of workers who are ill, absent or facing family responsibilities; n) Under the CMO, the provisions of the school scheme remain in place, but sectoral interventions are returned to the European Commission. The protein crop sector is now defined and supported; o) Maintenance of interventions relating to risk management instruments (mandatory where there are no national systems to support the uptake of risk management instruments such as insurance and mutual funds; covering losses exceeding 20% of production or income), support for investments by farmers and foresters, and the setting up of young farmers, new farmers, rural businesses and start-ups. p) Governance and digitalisation: each Member State must designate an authority responsible for CAP data governance, ensuring the interoperability of national and cross-border information systems. Roadmaps and annual reports are to be submitted to the European Commission. B. Income support measures with CAP ring-fenced amounts • With 100% funding from the European Union: — Degressive area-based income support — Income-linked support — Specific payment for cotton — Payments to small farmers • With a minimum national contributionof no less than 30% of eligible public expenditure, when withinthe CAP ring-fencing : — Payment for natural constraints and other specific area constraints — Payments for disadvantages resulting from certain mandatory requirements — Agri-environmental and climate actions — Risk management instruments — Support for investments by farmers and foresters — Setting up of young farmers, new farmers, rural businesses and start-ups — Replacement services — Sectoral interventions It should also be noted that: • In the intervention to support investments for farmers and forest producers, the maximum support rate is 75% of total eligible costs, rising to 85% for young farmers; • There are no pre-allocated appropriations for sectoral interventions in wine and beekeeping. Other CAP interventions that are, however, outside its ring-fencing: • School scheme • LEADER • POSEI • Knowledge sharing and innovation • Territorial and local cooperation • Crisis payments to farmers (mobilisation of national allocations) C. Main constraints for Portugal in this proposal In addition to the reduction in the CAP budget, it is worth noting the existence of a minimum amount of EUR 130 per hectare in degressive income support versus capping (increase in the average amount per hectare of degressive income support only possible from CAP ring-fencing); minimum co-financing rates higher than the current ones; and the existence of a set of interventions (POSEI; LEADER; collective investments in irrigation; investments in agro-industry; transfer/sharing of knowledge and innovation) that will compete with other Community support, as they are outside the CAP ring-fencing. There are therefore a number of budgetary issues that need to be decided at national level: on the one hand, the issue of the financial allocation to CAP interventions
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==