Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-002531/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Piotr Müller (ECR)
Speaking to the Walloon Parliament, Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin gave an assurance that direct payments to farmers would remain protected in the future EU budget.
This is easy to say, but it doesn’t give the complete picture. Claiming that Pillar I will be protected without giving a guarantee for Pillar II is a ruse which undermines the coherence of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is the rural development funds which make decisions on investment, modernisation and the long-term competitiveness of agriculture.
The lack of a guarantee for Pillar II gives rise to legitimate fears that it will be phased out and that farmers will lose their influence over the shaping of agricultural policy. What have been announced as ‘simplifications’ are actually a smokescreen for shifting funds outside the CAP, and this is happening at a time when the cohesion policy budget is also set to be cut.
In light of the above:
- 1.Can the Commission confirm unequivocally that both Pillar I and Pillar II of the CAP will remain fully protected in the next EU budget, and that the funding for Pillar I will not be reduced?
- 2.How does the Commission respond to the accusation that the absence of any guarantee for Pillar II is not merely a technical problem, but an attack on the coherence and raison d’être of the CAP as a whole?
- 3.Is the Commission conducting genuine consultations (rather than simply the appearance of consultations) with representatives of the agricultural sector on this matter? If it is, what specific positions are farmers putting forward and how does the Commission intend to respond to them?
Submitted: 24.6.2025