CAP simplification package

Key points

The EESC:

• believes that increased and improved digitalisation should be a key strategy for achieving simplification of the CAP, by enabling the use of digital tools for data collection, monitoring and payment processing; Member States (MS) need to actively promote and support farmer digital skill training, and financial support for upskilling and training should be provided as required;
• recommends that each CAP Strategic Plan should contain a specific plan for reducing the administrative burden of applying for payments, by shortening application forms, extensively using prepopulated forms and using the most up-to-date digital technology to access the relevant data;
• proposes that new farmers setting up for the first time in an agricultural holding as head of the holding should be granted the same terms and conditions regarding support for investments to comply with EU legal requirements as those given to young farmers, provided that they are active farmers;
• suggests that if a farming company, a farming holding or a group of farmers operating on the same farm incorporates two or more young farmers in different years, it should be eligible for more than the five years of complementary income support for young farmers;
• proposes that the annual payment for small farmers should not exceed EUR 5 000 (index-linked) where MS grant a payment to small farmers by way of a lump sum or amounts per hectare replacing direct payments and that the number of on-the-spot field inspections should be significantly reduced by increased use of modern technology;
• recommends that MS may include the possibility for aid applications and payment claims to be corrected after they have been submitted, without an effect on the right to receive aid, provided that the mistakes to be corrected have been made in good faith and the correction is made either before the applicant is informed of being selected for an on-the-spot check or before the competent authority has taken its decision;
• suggests that farmers who, due to unforeseen circumstances, have been unable to participate in a risk management tool system should not be discriminated against by being given a lower rate of compensatory payments;
• proposes that in exceptional circumstances, the Commission – in association with the MS – must provide extra emergency funding. Crisis payments must not reduce allocations for basic income support;
• recommends that MS should have discretion to apply an alternative payment system instead of per hectare payments for area-specific disadvantages imposed by mandatory requirements, if deemed appropriate to local conditions;
• proposes to fully evaluate and revise the GAECs so that they are farmer-friendly and support food security in the EU by facilitating the production of quality food consistent with good environmental practice;
• believes that support for investments in irrigation should not be dependent on the interpretation of the ‘less than good’ status of the water body by each MS or region. The needs of other ecosystems must be respected.