Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2025)236 - Amendment of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 as regards the conditionality system, types of intervention in the form of direct payment, types of intervention in certain sectors and rural development and annual performance reports and Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 as regards data and interoperability governance, suspensions of payments annual performance clearance and controls and penalties - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2025)236 - Amendment of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 as regards the conditionality system, types of intervention in the form of direct ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2025)236  |
| date | 14-05-2025 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Contents
- General context of the proposal
- Specific context and objectives
- Not applicable.
- The proposal is specifically designed to facilitate an important simplification of the EU CAP legal framework and to reduce the administrative burden for farmers and national administrations.
- The proposal respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
- Not applicable (the legal text is a regulation).
- The Commission proposes the following changes to the two CAP Regulations:
President von der Leyen’s political guidelines for the 2024-2029 Commission 1 set out a plan for sustainable prosperity. The plan emphasises the need to boost competitiveness to unlock opportunities, drive innovation and support growth in the European Union (EU).
Mario Draghi's report ‘The future of European Competitiveness’ 2 , points to costly regulatory burdens, affecting in particular SMEs through excessive reporting obligations, investment gaps and unfavourable conditions for leveraging private investment. The report advocates for coordinated efforts, whether through smaller, cumulative steps, bold EU-level actions, or increased subsidiarity to reduce these costly regulatory burdens.
Turning the report’s recommendations into a strategic roadmap, the Commission’s competitiveness compass 3 outlines five horizontal enablers that span across all policies and sectors. This includes systematic simplification efforts to streamline regulatory burdens, including making procedures for accessing EU funds simpler, faster, and lighter. The compass emphasises close links with digitalisation for better data management, minimising compliance and administrative costs.
The ‘simpler and faster Europe’ communication 4 puts forward a new way of working between EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders in the spirit of partnership and cooperation, to simplify EU rules, reduce regulatory burdens and improve how the rules are made and implemented. The communication sets the target to reduce administrative burden arising from EU rules by at least 25% for all companies and 35% for SMEs, by the end of 2029.
As highlighted by the Commission in the European Preparedness Union Strategy 5 of 26 March 2025, the Covid 19 pandemic and recent geopolitical developments have showed that the Union’s economy and its society as a whole can be profoundly disrupted by major critical events, such as armed conflicts or hybrid threats, and that there is a need to ensure preparedness to prevent and react to such threats. In particular, the Commission is aware of the serious challenges that an armed conflict in the territory of a Member State or a serious infrastructure sabotage concerning, for example, water supplies could represent for farmers operating in the area concerned. In this connection, the Commission recalls that, as explained in the Communication on force majeure and exceptional circumstances in Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy of 30 May 2024 6 , the concept of force majeure could cover also situations which are not specially mentioned in Article 3 of that Regulation, such as an armed conflict or an infrastructure sabotage within the territory of a Member State, provided that the relevant conditions are met. Force majeure may therefore excuse the farmers operating in the area concerned by these events from the legal consequences which, under the applicable rules, would normally flow from non-compliance with their obligations.
Close engagement and dialogue among EU institutions, farmers, and other agri-food stakeholders at all levels is a core principle of the ‘Vision for Agriculture and Food’6. In acknowledging the essential role of farmers in the society, the Vision seeks to boost the agri-food sector’s competitiveness and appeal. Drawing from the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture7, it outlines the conditions needed for the sector to thrive and continue providing its many benefits to society now and into 2040. Simplification, research, innovation and digitalisation are identified as key areas to achieve these objectives.
The Vision stresses that ‘farmers should be entrepreneurs and providers, not carrying unnecessary bureaucratic or regulatory burdens’, to drive innovation and sustainability in agricultural practices. This Vision as well as the sector’s diversity call for tailored approaches rather than ‘one-size-fit-all’ solutions, alongside reality-checks of the EU legislation, and simplifications facilitated by new technologies, such as automated reporting to reduce administrative burden. Striking a right balance between regulatory and incentive-based policies is equally important. The Vision recognises the specific needs of smaller farms, emphasising the need for minimal administrative burden and easier ways to access support from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These and some other farms are often at disadvantage in accessing and utilising funding, hindering their ability to invest, innovate and pursue development.
In the 2023-2027 period, the CAP supports farmers through national CAP Strategic Plans (the CAP Plans, the Plans) that are drawn up by Member States under a common EU framework to address economic, environmental and social challenges. This approach boosts subsidiarity in CAP management as well as the policy’s focus on performance, allowing for integrated and more targeted responses to agricultural challenges across Member States’ territories. Under this approach, Member States play an important role in keeping the administrative burden for farmers limited and proportionate.
Following their approval in 2022, the 28 CAP Plans have been implemented since 2023, providing direct income support to farmers, funding for environmental schemes, assistance for investments, innovation, specific needs of certain agricultural sectors, and rural development. The Plans detail a set of requirements, interventions and targets across 10 CAP specific objectives, the progress of which is measured by common indicators. The Plans play an important role in maintaining farmers' incomes while facilitating the transition of EU agriculture to a sustainable farming model, ensuring food security and the vitality of rural areas.
The CAP is supported by a well-established framework for collecting and discussing stakeholder feedback through expert groups, civil dialogue groups for cross-cutting, thematic and sector specific fora. The CAP Network gathers farmers’ and other organisations, administrations, researchers, entrepreneurs and other practitioners to exchange knowledge and information, encouraging peer-to-peer learning and sharing good practices. The governance framework under the CAP Plans, including monitoring committees, provides avenues for stakeholder involvement at Member State level.
The first year of implementation of the Plans coincided with the start of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which has since significantly affected markets, and changed the broader context for the EU agricultural policy. At the same time, natural disasters, adverse climatic events or other catastrophic events have significantly impacted many farmers’ production across the EU.
Following widespread farmer protests in early 2024 and discussions in the European Council about the challenges facing the agricultural sector, and feedback from EU institutions and stakeholders on the first year of implementing the CAP Plans, the Commission put forward a set of targeted adjustments to the CAP legal framework 7 . These adjustments aimed to better align the EU legal framework with on-farm realities, improve administration of the Plans by Member States, and reduce the burden of controls on farmers.
The debate on simplifying the CAP continued in 2025 using the insights from 2024, which represented the second year of implementing the Plans. EU Agricultural Ministers met on 27 January 2025 and called for further simplification. These calls overall revealed a need to improve the competitiveness of EU farms, lower the burden on both farmers and public administrations, and allocate the limited resources more effectively to meet changing demands. They have also shown that certain opportunities arising from the CAP remain underutilised due to complexities in implementation and management. Specific circumstances, practices and needs of certain farmer groups are also not always well recognised, which may result in overlapping obligations.
With the proposed adjustments in the CAP legislation, the Commission aims to improve its implementation by providing a swift and robust response to the issues that have been identified and to the new challenges. The response should increase the flexibility for Member States and reduce the burden on farmers so that they make use of all CAP opportunities, while maintaining CAP’s role in supporting the transition of European agriculture.
The Vision for Agriculture and Food outlined key areas of the current agricultural legislative framework that need to be adjusted (while other, more far-reaching issues, have been set aside for the discussions in the context of the CAP post-2027). The current proposal addresses these as follows:
·On-farm simplification and streamlining of requirements to better adjust to different situations and to a variety of farming practices. For example, this will be carried out by adjusting the CAP conditionality framework to the practices pursued by organic farmers , allowing payments per livestock and beehives for agri-environment-climate commitments and eco-schemes, taking into account in particular organic farming, providing for more flexibility in the implementation of GAEC 1, 2 and 4, while maintaining their contribution to their objectives introducing the possibility to swiftly pay support in case of crisis, by making risk management more flexible for certain crops and types of farmers;
·Streamlining support for smaller and medium-sized farms by encouraging Member States and farmers to make greater use of simplified payments. For example, this will be carried out by increasing the annual lump-sum payment limit for small farmers or by supporting their business development;
·Boosting competitiveness. Beyond general simplification, this will be carried outby simplifying rules on financial instruments, standard cost options for investments and extended financial assistance for the fruit and vegetables sector;
·Giving greater flexibility to Member States for the management of CAP Strategic Plans. For example, this will be carried out by removing the CAP Plan review obligation stemming from changes to certain EU legal acts, the discontinuation of the Annual Performance Clearance mechanism, simplification of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) quality assessment, by providing more flexibility in the methodology for controls of conditionality, by better aligning rules for amendments between the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and by making only those amendments that are of a strategic nature subject to a Commission approval, and by extending the time limits that apply to the Annual Performance Review.
Efforts to have a simple implementation of the legislation will not be limited to the CAP Strategic Plans.
The critical role that Member States will have in ensuring meaningful simplification based on the proposal also needs to be emphasised. The Commission’s efforts to provide broader choices to achieve its policy objectives should also be exploited by Member States so that farmers fully benefit from the proposal’s simplification objectives.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposed amendments are consistent with the general philosophy of the CAP basic acts currently in force namely Regulations (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with existing policy.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal adjusts a number of provisions in Regulations (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 currently in force, which were deemed consistent with other EU policies and adds new provisions consistently with the general philosophy of the existing CAP basic acts. The proposal is therefore consistent with other EU policies since it does not introduce fundamentally new elements to the existing policies.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis is Article 43 i of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) since the proposal aims to amend both, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 and Regulation (EU) 2021/2116.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The TFEU provides that the competence to determine EU agriculture policy is shared between the EU and the Member States. The EU exercises its competence adopting various legislative acts defining and implementing EU CAP as provided for in Articles 38 to 44 TFEU. Regulations (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 are part of the EU CAP legislative framework. To alleviate certain difficulties, provide simplification and reduce administrative burden, these Regulations need to be amended and this can only be done at EU level.
• Proportionality
The proposal modifies the existing Regulations only to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the objectives outlined above. It reduces the administrative burden on Member States and farmers and adds new elements only to the extent strictly necessary to adjust the existing Regulations to the objectives outlined above.
• Choice of the instrument
Since the original legislative acts are regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council, the amendments must also be introduced as a European Parliament and Council regulation under the ordinary legislative procedure.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
• Stakeholder consultations
The proposal responds to the expectations of the farming community and the repeated calls of the Council and the Member States to address as soon as possible the administrative burdens and bottlenecks in the CAP legislative framework.
In preparing this proposal, the Commission reviewed input from national administrations, the European Parliament COMAGRI Committee, and farmers’ representatives that was provided in 2024 and which included over 500 individual suggestions. It also examined more than 400 suggestions provided by Member States following the 27 January 2025 debate in the AGRIFISH Council. These suggestions covered a wide range of policy, implementation, organisational, and economic issues regarding both CAP and non-CAP legislation.
The Commission also considered feedback following discussions on the implementation of the CAP Strategic Plans in Commission expert groups and the CAP network, and spontaneous contributions from various stakeholder groups, including farmers’ organisations and environmental NGOs.
A meeting of a Civil Dialogue Group on the CAP Strategic Plans and Horizontal Matters was convened on 24 March 2025 to discuss possible simplification measures. In this meeting, the participants shared ideas on simplifying CAP legislation and more broadly EU legislation in domains relevant for farmers. They also shared ideas on the relevance and importance of national implementation choices in simplifying the CAP framework for farmers and other beneficiaries. In these meetings as well in several letters addressed to the Commission, certain stakeholders emphasised the need to not simplify in a way that would be detrimental to environmental or fair working conditions policy objectives. The importance of legal certainty for farmers was also underlined by some.
The EU CAP network’s thematic group on simplification met on 2 April 2025 to share views on implementation challenges that could be addressed by simplification and to gather examples of actions already taken at Member State level that could be replicated as good practice in CAP applications and monitoring, reporting and controls.
Further evidence was gathered through a survey about farmers that in 2024 collected close to 27 000 replies on their experience and perceptions of applying for CAP support and the associated obligations. This survey, together with follow-up in-depth interviews with a sample of respondents, and surveys and interviews of other CAP beneficiaries and stakeholders at EU and Member State level informed a study on the simplification and administrative burden for farmers and other beneficiaries under the CAP.
• Collection and use of expertise
The proposal takes into account the findings and results from the external study on simplification and administrative burden for farmers and other beneficiaries under the CAP that was conducted in 2024-2025 8 . The study captures and analyses beneficiaries’ and advisory services’ perspective on the key sources of administrative burden and difficulties related to compliance with requirements related to the implementation of the 2023-2027 CAP; assesses the burden for beneficiaries and identifies burden stemming from EU level CAP legislation and burden linked to Member States’ implementation choices and possible gold-plating; and draws conclusions on the most important simplification actions/areas from the CAP support beneficiaries’ perspective.
• Impact assessment
Given the urgent need to put forward measures to address the identified problems, it has not been possible to prepare a full impact assessment. However, a staff working document has been prepared to accompany this proposal by the Commission, assessing the administrative cost reduction..
The package steers the CAP along the pathway outlined in the Vision for Agriculture and Food, enabling a balanced transition to improved agricultural practices and supporting farmers’ business development opportunities, especially for young farmers. It offers substantial additional flexibility to both Member States and farmers and creates conditions for increased use of opportunities of the CAP legal framework. The proposed amendments further acknowledge that incentivizing farmers may be more effective than imposing changes through mandatory requirements, thereby ensuring greater acceptance and adherence to sustainability improvements. The simplification proposal keeps all the essential components of the CAP’s green architecture, including all GAEC standards and CAP support instruments that will continue to be designed to go beyond the mandatory standards.
Overall, the assessment indicates that the package offers opportunities to significantly reduce CAP-related burden especially for farmers. The extent of the achievement of reduced costs, benefits and their distribution will, however, largely depend on the choices made by Member States. The role of Member States in leveraging the new opportunities and achieving tangible simplification for farmers is key.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The proposal is specifically designed to facilitate an important simplification of the EU CAP legal framework and to reduce the administrative burden for farmers and national administrations.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal will have a budgetary impact due to amendment of Article 52 i of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, facilitating the increase of the Union financial assistance for sectoral interventions in the fruit and vegetables sector.
The Union financial assistance to fruit and vegetables’ producer organisations (PO) approved by Member States for the implementation of operational programmes (OP) is limited to a certain percentage (from 4.1 % to 5.5 % depending on the type of beneficiaries and the objectives pursued) of the value of marketed production of those producer organisations. The proposed amendment of Article 52 i of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 entails a possible increase of these limits by 0.5 percentage points for the CAP Strategic Plan interventions, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Depending on the choice of the PO, this may increase the expenditure. Given that from 2026 all OPs will be implemented under the CAP Strategic Plan and based on the execution of the sector in financial year 2024 (EUR 1.15 billion), the estimated annual additional expenditure is EUR 5.75 million (EUR 1.15 billion x 0.05). To make use of the possible increase, POs will have to amend their OPs, thus the financial impact affects 2026 and 2027. Any related expenditure will remain under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) sub-ceiling.
Furthermore, the proposal has non quantifiable budgetary impact deriving from the amendment of Article 16 i of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116. The proposed amendment of that provision excludes from financing under the agricultural reserve the measures providing support to farmers affected by natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events. The proposal does not change the overall amount of the reserve. However, the provision might lead to lower expenditure under the reserve, in case that it will not be used for measures against market disturbances (Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013), measures concerning animal diseases and plant pests and the loss of consumer confidence (Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013), other measures to resolve specific problems (Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) or agreements and decisions during periods of severe imbalance in markets (Article 222 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) (the latter is subject to adoption by the European Parliament and the Council and the entry into force of the related provision in the Commission proposal for amendment of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (COM(2024) 577 final). As it cannot be envisaged in advance which exceptional circumstances will occur which may qualify for support in form of exceptional measures, this budgetary impact cannot be quantified. The proposed amendment might at the earliest have an effect (if the proposed amendments enter into force by then) from 16 October 2025, thus in the financial year 2026, given that funds have already been allocated under the 2025 reserve for sectors affected by adverse climatic events and natural disasters 9 . Any related expenditure will remain under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) sub-ceiling.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
As laid down in Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, a performance framework has been established under the shared responsibility of Member States and the Commission. The performance framework provides for the reporting, monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the CAP Strategic Plans during their implementation. This framework is slightly modified by the proposal due to the adjustment of output indicators due to the establishment of the crisis measures. A new reporting requirement for Member States is also added under a new Article 13a of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116.
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Framework definitions: The experience with the implementation of the definition of permanent grassland has shown that its application is difficult for farming systems with long agronomic rotations, notably to fight against weeds. Therefore, the provision related to this definition is amended so that Member States may choose to extend the time limit before the permanent grassland definition takes effect on a grassland area from five to seven years.
Conditionality system: The experience gained from the application of the conditionality system in 2023-2024 shows that further adaptation is needed. The interlink between national rules and requirements in GAEC standards should be clarified to give more flexibility to Member States to align different requirements. In view of the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 10 and the farming practices implemented in the organic sector, farmers certified under that Regulation should be deemed compliant with certain GAEC standards, in addition to GAEC standard 7. According to a recent meta-analysis by Alvarez 2021 11 organic systems rely significantly on practices such as crop rotations, multi-cropping, crop residues retention, no or minimum tillage, use of animal manures and green manures, off-farm organic wastes and aspects of biological pest control to maintain soil productivity, to supply plant nutrients and to control of pests.These practices are beneficial for both, soil protection and preservation as well as for protection of river courses against pollution and run-off. The application of GAEC standard 1 that aims to maintain permanent grassland ratio should be made more flexible by increasing the possible decrease of permanent grassland not triggering reconversion to permanent grasslands from 5 to 10 percent to take into account structural changes of farms, in particular in the livestock sector. The application of GAEC standard 4 that aims to protect river courses against pollution and run-off should also be clarified so as to give Member States the opportunity to better align the definition of water courses with the definition of water courses laid down in national legislation, provided that that definition is in line with the main objective of this GAEC standard with the view to, among others, avoid excluding from the definition of water courses smaller water courses that could carry pollution downstream, and possibly also across borders to other Member State. The control method on the respect of conditionality requirements is also streamlined. Finally, considering that the agricultural area managed by small farmers receiving payments under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 is limited, while they represent a significant share of farmers in the Union, administrative costs should be reduced for both Member States and small farmers by exempting them from the application of the system of conditionality.
Direct payments: Experience gained from the implementation shows that the payment for small farmers (Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115), consisting of a lump-sum payment and simpler application process, was not taken up by many Member States. Therefore, the proposal increases the maximum possible lump-sum payment for participating farmers to 2 500 euro. In addition, it is proposed that Member States have the possibility to allow farmers benefitting from the lump-sum payment to apply for payments under eco-schemes.
Eco-schemes and agri-environment-climate commitments: In order to be able to cover costs related to the implementation of GAEC 2, that aims to preserve peatlands and wetlands, and which is not changed by the current proposal, Member States should have the possibility to exclude this GAEC from the baseline of eco-schemes and agri-environment-climate commitments. At the same time, eco-schemes may, if decided so by Member States, continue to provide support for management practices on wetlands and peatlands beyond their protection, such as their restoration through rewetting or implementation of paludiculture, in order to enhance, in particular the carbon sequestration potential of these areas .
Furthermore, in order to enable support for organic farming methods for livestock, it should be possible for Member States to grant support to commitments related to the conversion or maintenance of organic farming practices and methods in the form of an annual payment for livestock units. It should also be possible to grant support for commitments improving farming practices related to apiculture in the form of annual payment for beehives, as sustainable practices by apiculture producers need to be supported and the use of livestock units for that purpose is not appropriate.
Sectoral types of intervention: Based on Member States’ experience with implementation of sectoral interventions in the fruits and vegetables sector, the possibility for enhanced support should be expanded to reinforce the position of farmers in the supply chain in those sectors.
Crisis payments experience has shown that the agricultural reserve is predominantly used to address natural disasters and adverse climate events, although its primary objective is to help farmers in case of market disturbance. It is therefore proposed to clearly limit its use to such events. Besides, considering the increasing frequency of such adverse climate events and the considerable losses they generate, it is proposed to amend rules on direct payments and rural development types of intervention to set up two additional crisis payments that Member States could mobilize in case of natural disasters and adverse climate events. In order to avoid a disproportionate impact on other interventions set in the CAP plans, the amounts to be dedicated to these interventions should be limited to a maximum percentage of the total of the annual allocations for direct payments and rural development, and the payments should not distort trade. The proposal excludes from the scope of application of the conditionality system and social conditionality system, that applies to area and animal-based payments, the new complementary crisis payments under direct payments since their purpose is to alleviate the difficult situation of farmers suffering important losses. Finally, to increase the potential impact of such payments, provisions are introduced to enable paying national financing.
Risk management: experience with implementation has shown a low use of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 allowing to use a part of the direct payments of farmers as contributions to risk management schemes. Also, rules on the calculation of losses for risk management interventions supported by the CAP proved not to be well adapted for certain types of land and categories of farmers. It is therefore proposed to amend Articles 19 and 76 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 to further help the take-up of such schemes.
Other amendments regarding Rural development types of intervention:
·In order to align the principles of calculation of payments for area-specific disadvantages resulting from certain mandatory requirements with changes made in respect of GAEC standard 2, and the rules concerning calculation for payments for eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate commitments, it should be possible for Member States to include in latter calculation disadvantages resulting from the requirements under GAEC standard 2. In addition, payments per livestock units and payments per beehive should be possible for agri-environmental-climate management commitments.
·Business development of small farms should be promoted to enhance their competitiveness and viability, while keeping the payment simple. Hence, it is proposed to establish a dedicated payment for such purpose. The use of Simplified Cost Options, that have an important simplification potential, should be boosted by introducing the possibility to use the Simplified Cost Options established under Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 without a need for further justification.
·Regarding financial instruments’ use, experience in implementation has shown that there are synergies to be exploited in the implementation and control between CAP financial instruments and the other financial instruments governed by Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, in particular regarding the audit trail, irregularities and financial corrections or eligibility rules with regard to the value-added tax which should be aligned. Also, the general State Aid regime under Article 3 i of Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2831 12 has been recently amended, the maximum applicable gross grant equivalent ceiling needs to be aligned accordingly.
·Regarding transfers by Member States of EAFRD allocations to InvestEU, there is a need to amend the existing legislation to allow full use of the newly introduced possibilities under Article 10a i of Regulation (EU) 2021/523 13 .
CAP Strategic Plan amendments: Experience has shown that the amendments of CAP Strategic Plans contain multiple technical and strategic elements that render them complex for Member States. To simplify and improve the efficiency of amendment procedures, in particular regarding elements of the CAP Strategic Plans that are not of strategic nature, approval by the Commission should be required only for strategic amendments of CAP Strategic Plans. Furthermore, implementation has also shown that different rules applicable to interventions financed by the EAGF and the EAFRD, respectively, may cause uncertainty for farmers and increase complexity for Member States when proposing amendments to CAP Plans. To improve synergies between the EAGF and the EAFRD Articles 86 and 119(8) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 need to be amended to enable eligibility of expenditure for EAGF contribution from the date of effect of the amendment set by the Member State, which it may set for a date subsequent to the date of the submission of request for amendment to the Commission. The proposal of a date of effect for EAGF-related amendments should be added to the list of items which require an opinion from the monitoring committee to ensure that farmers and other beneficiaries have sufficient time to take the amendment of the CAP Strategic Plan into account. Other provisions are adjusted to reflect the amendments of Article 119 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115.
Annual performance clearance: In the light of the experience gained after the first annual performance clearance exercise for financial year 2023, the annual performance clearance should be discontinued to ease the administrative burden upon Member States. This simplification, while safeguarding the performance of the CAP via the eligibility conditions for expenditure in Article 37 i, point (b), of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 and the biennial performance review referred to in Article 135 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, will also lead to the simplification of the annual performance report as information required solely for the purposes of annual performance clearance will no longer be necessary. The possibility to provide for a retroactive application as regards the amendments related to deletion of the annual performance clearance and the corresponding amendments of Article 134 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 from financial year 2025 will depend on the exact content and the date of entry into force of such amendments included in this Regulation. At this moment of time, it is not possible to decide if such a retroactive application can be provided for. Its feasibility should be discussed by the co-legislators in view of the final content and the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Annual performance report and other provisions: Regarding the annual performance report, experience has shown that its link with the biennial performance review needs to be strengthened, by clarifying that justifications for shortfalls from milestones for the purposes of biennial performance review should be included in the annual performance report. Time limits for the assessment of the report are also revised in light of the experience gained with implementation.
Update of SPR to new legislative acts: Articles 120 and 159 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2215 ensure that the list of Union legislative acts in Annex XIII to that Regulation concerning the environment and climate is updated and taken as basis by Member States to assess whether their CAP Strategic Plans should be amended. Considering that we are in the middle of the implementation period of the CAP Strategic Plans and that very few acts were newly adopted or amended which are of relevance to those CAP Strategic Plans, such strategic modifications would disrupt the implementation of CAP Strategic Plans. Therefore, these provisions should be deleted to ensure stability of the Union legal framework until the end of the programming period.
Finally, Annexes I, II and III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 are adapted to above changes to include new output indicators for the new types of support introduced under the newly added Article 41a and Article 78a to that Regulation and to align the list of output indicators with the amendment of Article 75 of that Regulation, as well as to indicate the relevant paragraph of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture for the newly established interventions and to introduced changes to GAEC standards 1 and 4.
CAP data and interoperability governance: The absence of coordination structure at Member State level, as well as the differences observed in digital transition among Member States hinder the effective implementation of interoperability, including seamless exchange of data, between information systems used for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the CAP and its benefits. Provisions are therefore proposed to ensure that each Member State designates one authority responsible for drawing up and implementing a roadmap to achieve and maintain interoperability and seamless exchange of data.
Use of agricultural reserve: Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 sets rules on the agricultural reserve. Experience with its implementation has shown that in the past years it was increasingly used to help farmers suffering losses due to natural disasters, adverse climatic events or catastrophic events. The provision is amended so that the agricultural reserve focuses on its intended original purpose of mitigating the impacts of market disturbances.
Controls and checks on farmers: regarding checks on farmers, the amendments aims to reduce the burden and control pressure on farmers by introducing the objective of “one control per year”, which provides that Member States should organise on-the-spot checks of aid applications, payment claims or conditionality in a manner that limits to the extent possible, multiple checks on a beneficiary during one year except when the circumstances require a second control to ensure effective protection of the financial interests of the Union.
The experience gained with the quality assessments of the Identification System for agricultural parcels (LPIS), the Geo-Spatial Application (GSA) and the Area Monitoring System (AMS) point to the possibility of synergies that could be exploited, while simplifying implementation and reducing the need for on-site visits. Hence, it is proposed to merge these systems.
Regarding conditionality controls experience gained in the application of the conditionality control system, has shown that certain conditions are unnecessarily rigid and place an undue burden on Member States, without necessarily enhancing the protection of Union funds. To streamline the control system, the requirement for a yearly review of the control system should be removed and the factors to be considered in the risk analysis should be left to the discretion of Member States. In addition, small beneficiaries other than farmers may not benefit from the exemptions from conditionality controls and penalties introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/1468. The area managed by those beneficiaries is limited and the penalties are in general low. Considering the area covered and the administrative burden linked to the controls and the application of penalties for conditionality, provisions should be made so that small beneficiaries other than farmers are also exempted from conditionality controls and from the application of administrative penalties for conditionality requirements.
Finally, Articles 102 and 103 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 that lay down rules concerning exercise of delegation of power to the Commission and the committee procedure should be amended to take account of amendments of other provisions of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 introduced by this proposal.