No. 34 The future of the Common Agricultural Policy 76 ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTIVE STUDIES CULTIVAR How can a balance be ensured between degressivity, modulation,minimum/maximumvaluesand the need to gain scale? It makes sense to have degressivity and minimum and maximum support limits, as proposed by the Commission, for reasons of fairness. Firstly, because the CAP budget allocation is very limited in relation to needs, and it is necessary to ensure that all types of farms receive support. Secondly, because since direct payments are based on area, it is obvious that, given their negligible amounts, they would have no impact on the resilience of small and medium-sized farms, which are particularly prevalent in the Algarve and north of the Tagus. Hence the relevance and need to apply corrective differentiation. Support for small-scale agriculture Do they help to stabilise rural populations? How important is this type of support? Unfortunately, this is the reality in vast regions of the country. These small or even micro-producers are the ones who are in these territories and who ensure such active management. Should they be universal or limited by territory/activity? I would like to emphasise once again that we must be careful about discrimination. If a citizen is registered with the tax authorities as engaged in agricultural activity and actually carries out this activity and meets the other conditions for opting for the simplified support scheme for small-scale agriculture, I see no need for further differentiation and bureaucracy. Coupled payments Are they still justified? To which sectors? I believe so, whenever the viability of certain sectors or production systems is at risk, whether for market or structural reasons, or due to policy changes. As for the sectors, I do not claim to be exhaustive. But I believe that, essentially, the current situation can be maintained. If you consider it relevant, how should the support model for extensive livestock farming agnrdazingbe reformulate?d I have a flexible position on this matter. What I consider important is that, whatever the technical approach, there should be no overcompensation in the end and, therefore, no imbalance with other production systems and other territories. Agri-environmental measures (AEM) Have they been effective? I believe that a serious study of the impact of these measures should be carried out internally, as I do not consider that they all have the same degree of importance or priority. I also consider the amount allocated to environmental and climate measures in the initial programming of the second pillar of the CAP Strategic Plan (CAPSP) to be excessive, as it was over 45%, when EU legislation only required us to allocate 35%. Given our dependence on food imports, I believe that, while complying with EU environmental rules, we should direct as many resources as possible towards increasing the production and competitiveness of our agriculture. Should areas of intervention be merged/concentrated or expande?d Essentially, I think we should be more focused and selective. Should they be based on cost/loss compensation or include incentives? For my part, I advocate the system that proves easiest to implement, provided that the end result is the same.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==