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 103kWORD 18k
22 November 2018
Question for written answer P-005876-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Elsi Katainen (ALDE)

 Subject:  Determination of the CAP aid ceiling
 Answer in writing 

Article 15 of Commission proposal COM(2018) 392 concerning rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council provides for a gradual reduction in aid payments if the total amount received in direct aid exceeds EUR 60 000 per calendar year.

In the current programming period, farmers have been encouraged to invest and develop their operations. This has inevitably led to an increase in farm size, which also means larger aid payments per holding. In less favoured areas, such as Finland, aid based on production is necessary in order, for example, to maintain production of milk and beef and veal, but the Commission proposal would also apply the cap to such targeted direct aids.

In Finland, the Commission’s proposal would already cut support for medium-sized meat and dairy farms, for example, which are standard family farms. In other words, the proposal would impose cuts on precisely these medium-sized farms, which in the previous programming period were encouraged to invest and increase the size of their holdings. The capping is therefore problematic from the point of view of structural development.

Will the Commission allow additional flexibility and scope for Member States to take account of the high degree of variability in agricultural structures?

Is it the Commission’s intention to impose cuts precisely on medium-sized farms and family farms, which have invested in the development of their holdings during the current programming period?

Original language of question: FI 
Last updated: 26 November 2018Legal notice