No. 34 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy 74 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR the CAP, have been driven by a radical environmentalist agenda, in clear imbalance with economic, technological and social concerns. Just think that less than 12% of farmers in the EU are under 40 years of age and that in Portugal this percentage is less than 4%. As for the position of farmers in the value chain, it is unacceptable that nothing concrete has been done so far at the level of a common Union policy. Is this how we ensure the attractiveness of the profession, the renewal of generations and, consequently, the continuity of the sector in the future? 2. Policy models The current CAP model is being extended into the future, according to the Commission's proposal. What is your view on the possible evolution or maintenance of this model? It was no coincidence that we arrived at the current CAP model, which was the result of a wide range of reforms and adjustments over the years to improve responses to the problems and imbalances that had been detected and urgently needed to be corrected. I therefore believe that the current two-pillar model should be maintained, but that support for investment should be strengthened, as never before has there been such a need to invest in innovation, technology, digitalisation and knowledge. These are costly investments which, in order not to be reserved for a privileged minority, must be supported on a large scale. In particular, what do you think is the best way forward: to focus on incentives or regulation (e.g. environment, food safety, etc.)? I believe that both approaches are necessary. The problem lies in the correct articulation and dosage of the inherent policies. Too much regulation can be paralysing in terms of competitiveness, as the Commission recently acknowledged in relation to excessive environmental regulation and the situations of greenwashing that it has led to. And excessive incentives for the production of environmental goods divert resources from other areas that are crucial to ensuring the future sustainability of farms, such as investment support. Is there a case for complementary EU or national legislationto address issuessuch as land ownershipby thirdcountry entities (namely multinationals or investment funds) or migration flows? Should critical thresholds be defined, for example? These are matters of great social and political sensitivity that must be handled with great caution, as we saw recently with the issue of immigration and the immigrant quotas imposed on Member States. Because Member States have a huge diversity of situations, traditions, land laws and capacities for integrating immigrants, I argue that these issues should be dealt with at national level. On immigration, what the Union can and must do is support Member States in strengthening their external borders. It is not a question of wanting or not wanting immigrants, because we need them. It is a question of being masters of our own destiny and managing our own territory. How can agricultural policies be coordinated with infrastructureinvestmentpoliciesin rural areas? With investment in infrastructure in rural areas, farmers will be able to take advantage of it, as is particularly the case with the road and rail network, broadband Internet, energy and water. I believe that we should create a genuine rural development policy, combining funding from regional development and cohesion policies (ERDF and Cohesion Fund) with that from the CAP (EAFRD). Attempting to implement an integrated rural development policy using only LEADER programme funds is unrealistic, given the limited resources available under this programme. We should increasingly coordinate these sources of funding with national resources, not only from the state budget, but also from the Environmental Fund.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==