Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 5kWORD 18k
27 March 2018
Question for written answer E-001849-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Monika Smolková (S&D)

 Subject:  Subsidies for agricultural land
 Answer in writing 

In Slovakia, subsidies are not connected to production, but actively disconnected from it. In principle, this means that farmers do not actually have to grow anything in their fields; they simply need to keep them free from weeds. This might explain why today so many profit-seekers are pouring into farming and simply covering their fields and meadows with mulch.

The system known as decoupling adopted by Brussels has brought about a situation which no one could have imagined before our accession to the Union. EU subsidies go towards so-called landscape maintenance, but in reality the countryside, particularly in the foothill regions, has not been properly cultivated for many years.

1. Does the Commission have an overview of the impact decoupling has had on subsidy policy? Specifically, are there any statistics analysing just how many hectares of the fields which receive subsidies are actually used for farming production?

2. Is the Commission planning to revise the decoupling system under the post-2020 common agricultural policy?

Original language of question: SK 
Last updated: 12 April 2018Legal notice