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 41kWORD 9k
14 November 2019
E-003843/2019
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Bronis Ropė
 Subject: Regulation on the CAP transition period

In paragraph 4 of the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a regulation on the CAP transition period (2019/0254 (COD)), the Commission states: ‘Therefore, the initiative has a budgetary impact in the sense that it adds the allocations for direct payments and rural development for the relevant transitional period to ensure smooth continuity.’

The Commission used the area declared in 2009 to calculate the size of its national envelope for Lithuania for the 2014-2020 period, which was 2.64 million hectares.

For the 2021-2027 period, the 2016 reference area, which in Lithuania was 2,9 million hectares, was used for the calculation of direct payment amounts.

Would the Commission answer the following questions:

What area did the Commission use to calculate the amount of the national envelope allocated to Lithuania for direct payments in 2021 in order to ensure the ‘smooth continuity’ referred to in the above quote?

One of the central themes of the CAP in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods is external convergence. Why does the proposal for a regulation on the CAP transition period fail completely to pursue the process of external convergence, even though the Commission advocates the ‘smooth continuity’ of the CAP (see quote above)?

Original language of question: LT
Last updated: 3 December 2019Legal notice