Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document analyzes the distribution rules for the EU's €7.5 billion recovery budget for agriculture, specifically the new Article 58a of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013. It argues that the 'non-regression principle' and other spending thresholds are insufficient to ensure environmental progress, as they include non-ecological payments and allow Member States to prioritize socio-economic investments over green ones. The author concludes that the framework encourages 'business as usual' and fails to align with the European Green Deal.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The distribution of the recovery budget is governed by a 'non-regression principle' requiring Member States to maintain the same overall percentage of spending on environment, climate, and areas of natural constraints (ANCs) as they did during the 2014-2020 CAP period.
  • The non-regression principle is criticized as weak because it includes payments for areas of natural constraints (ANCs), which the document asserts lack scientific evidence of being environment- or climate-friendly.
  • EU rules mandate that at least 37% of additional recovery resources be dedicated to animal welfare, LEADER, and environment, climate, and ANCs measures, including organic farming and greenhouse gas emission reduction.
  • At least 55% of the additional recovery resources must be reserved for socio-economic measures, such as investments in physical assets, farm development, and digitalization, though these lack mandatory biodiversity or climate mitigation criteria.
  • A legislative exception allows Member States to derogate from either the 55% socio-economic threshold or the non-regression principle if they cannot comply with both simultaneously, potentially allowing a reduction in environmental support.

Cite the original document

APA
ClientEarth (2021). The recovery budget for agriculture. https://www.clientearth.org/media/al0n1xtm/clientearth_the-recovery-budget-for-agriculture_how-the-eu-disguised-a-missed-opportunity_1-march-2021.pdf
Chicago
ClientEarth. The recovery budget for agriculture. 2021. https://www.clientearth.org/media/al0n1xtm/clientearth_the-recovery-budget-for-agriculture_how-the-eu-disguised-a-missed-opportunity_1-march-2021.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=The recovery budget for agriculture |date=March 2021 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/al0n1xtm/clientearth_the-recovery-budget-for-agriculture_how-the-eu-disguised-a-missed-opportunity_1-march-2021.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{clientearth2021recovery, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{The recovery budget for agriculture}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2021}, month = mar, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/al0n1xtm/clientearth_the-recovery-budget-for-agriculture_how-the-eu-disguised-a-missed-opportunity_1-march-2021.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated