Response to CAP 2028-34: A guide for reflection and debate 75 3. Policy actors Who should be the target of the CAP: active farmers, food producers, land managers? Naturally, it must be active farmers. Can the concept of active farmer be useful? Whatshould it be based on? It must be based on the actual exercise of productive activity, whether full-time or part-time. Should there be criteria for positive discrimination(young people, women, small farms, disadvantaged areas , membership of producer organisations,participationin RISAgri/FSDN, other)? I accept the principle of positive discrimination because it means that what is different should be treated differently. However, when it comes to applying the principle, a great deal of consideration is required. I will give an example of positive discrimination that should not have been applied. In the 2014-20 Community framework, a set of criteria was established for analysing applications for support from the Rural Development Programme (RDP), which gave higher scores to applications from those who were members of producer organisations (POs). This might have made sense if all Portuguese farmers had the same level of access to POs. However, this was not the case, as coverage is unfortunately very poor north of the Tagus. As a result, what was a good intention of positive discrimination ended up being negative discrimination. This also happens because there is no policy to support cooperatives so that they can, almost automatically, perform the functions of producer organisations or groups. The same risk of negative discrimination may occur with the criteria for joining RISAgri, as not all farms have the same conditions for joining. I think it is preferable in these cases to give an independent incentive to those who have the conditions and want to join. I also see no reason to distinguish between genders. What makes sense is to discriminate positively the status of young farmer, because without new generations there will be no future in agriculture. Small-scale farming already has a specific and simplified status. As for disadvantaged areas, the only way to ensure the survival of agricultural activity in these areas is through differentiated support, which must be much more robust than it is at present. I believe, in fact, that it would make sense to review the current criteria for demarcating these areas, creating a subcategory of areas of extreme disadvantage. To what extent does the CAP have the capacity and vocation to respond to forestry producers? This is an issue that deserves further analysis and debate. Forestry is a fundamental activity in our territories, performing important functions, particularly of an environmental, economic and social nature. I believe that the second pillar of the CAP should finance certain infrastructure and actions to prevent and minimise risks, in addition to training and awarenessraising actions. I also believe that the Environmental Fund should finance both planting and restructuring investments and a system of remuneration for ecosystem services, which should be offset by cleaning. This Fund, which has an annual budget of more than EUR 1.8 billion, much higher than that of the two pillars of the CAP combined, should have an integrated approach to forests and a more structured and robust support grid. 4. Policy instruments Decoupled or disconnecpteadyments ShouldallfarmswithPLE(PotentiallyEligible Land) be eligible,or should selectivitycriteria be introduced(e.g. active farmers, restrictions on unproductive land, part-time farming, etc.)? Payments should be made to all active farmers, who are the ones who manage the land.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==