EU agricultural budget: Committee thwarts von der Leyen's plans #agriculturefunding #agriculturalbudget

In the dispute over the next multi-year financial framework for the EU, the EU Budget Committee insists on a separate agricultural budget and on an inflation adjustment. The Budget Committee of the European Parliament does not support the possible plans of the Commission to eliminate the EU agricultural budget. This was made clear by the members of the committee in their meeting on Wednesday (23.4.). Thus, the Commission's plans for the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) remain controversial. According to the wishes of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the upcoming MFF could be divided into three large blocks. For the funds from the first part, the Brussels authority wants to develop and implement its own reform and investment program for each member state in cooperation with them. A key focus should be on promoting economic, social, and territorial cohesion. It is rumored that EU agricultural funding will also fall into this budget block. Proposals for the MFF are expected by the middle of the year. Shortly thereafter, proposals for the EU agricultural reform from 2028 are also expected to follow. The Budget Committee is against national budgets Budget policymakers in the EU Parliament strictly reject the model of "a national plan per member state." They fear greater distortions of competition, more fraud, and enrichment by top politicians. Therefore, the committee demands an MFF structure that "ensures transparency and parliamentary accountability." In general, the committee insists that the role of the parliament in holding the executive accountable is preserved by introducing strict mechanisms and ensuring complete transparency about the recipients of EU funds. Furthermore, in their initiative report "On a revamped long-term budget for the Union in a changing world," the budget policymakers consider an "appropriate" and also "predictable" support for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) necessary. Inflation adjustment is necessary They also insist on more money in the EU budget. This could also have a positive impact on the agricultural budget. As the global environment changes, a significantly "more ambitious" EU budget is generally necessary, according to the report. The current spending ceiling of 1% of the gross national income (GNI) of the 27 member states is not sufficient to cope with the growing number of crises and challenges, according to the Budget Committee. It also points out that the current MFF has come under pressure due to high inflation, reducing the real value of the EU budget. Therefore, the future EU budget must be able to be adjusted in case of inflation shocks. The Bavarian Farmers' Association has long been demanding an inflation adjustment for agricultural funds. Agriculture is vulnerable to inflation shocks According to the rapporteurs, the agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to inflation shocks. In line with the current objectives of EU agricultural policy, they emphasize that a modern and simplified CAP is crucial to increase productivity through technological progress, ensure an adequate standard of living for farmers, ensure food security and produce high-quality and affordable food, as well as promote generational renewal and the viability of rural areas. These goals were outlined in EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen's agricultural visions. Supporting the resilience of farmers According to the committee, the next financial framework should also support the competitiveness and resilience of agriculture and fisheries. In addition, the sectors must be helped to better protect the climate and biodiversity, as well as the seas and oceans. Do not jeopardize proven policies The budget policymakers consider the Commission's planned competitiveness fund, under which several existing funding programs are to be merged, to be inadequate. They advocate for a new EU fund that specifically boosts private and public investments. While higher defense investments are necessary, this should not come at the expense of social and environmental spending or lead to a reduction in funding for long-standing Union policies that "have proven themselves over time," according to the Budget Committee. They may also have been referring to the CAP. However, they did not provide specific details in the debate on Wednesday. With material from AgE