“I view the upcoming discussion of the multiannual financial framework with great concern”

“I am very concerned about the upcoming discussion on the multiannual financial framework”, acknowledges Álvaro Mendonça e Moura. In the ECO dos Fundos podcast, the president of the Portuguese Farmers’ Confederation (CAP) recalls his experience as ambassador in Brussels during the negotiation of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework, known in Portugal as QREN, and guarantees that “this will be much more difficult”. “Because we have all the needs related to security and defence”, he explains.

powered by Advanced iFrame free. Get the Pro version on CodeCanyon .

Mendonça e Moura argues that “the Common Agricultural Policy cannot be lumped together with all other policies; it must have its own autonomous funds and a robust budget”. And by robust budget he means: “a budget equal to the one we had, adjusted for inflation”.

“This is our starting point and we have already told the Prime Minister that a fundamental point in the way in which agriculture will evaluate this Government's action will be the way in which the Government fights in Brussels on the issue of the multiannual financial framework and the autonomy of the Common Agricultural Policy”, he warned.

The president of CAP leaves a word of solidarity to the wine producers of Douro, asks for structural support and sees Mercosur as a solution to find new markets for national wine.

powered by Advanced iFrame free. Get the Pro version on CodeCanyon .

On 16 July, the European Commission will present its first proposal for the EU budget. There is talk of a 20% cut in funding for agriculture and cohesion. Are you concerned about this prospect?

I am very concerned about the upcoming discussion on the multiannual financial framework, which we all know will be very difficult. It is always difficult. I myself negotiated the multiannual financial framework when I was ambassador in Brussels, for the period 2007-2013. This one will be much more difficult because we have all the needs related to security and defence. It will be more complicated. It is very important to understand that if Europe wants to have strategic autonomy, it must have food sovereignty. There is no strategic autonomy without food sovereignty. And to have food sovereignty, we must have a strong Common Agricultural Policy. That is why all European agricultural organisations have said that the Common Agricultural Policy cannot be lumped together with all other policies; it must have its own autonomous resources and a robust budget.

What does that mean?

This means that it cannot be confused – although it can and should be complementary – with the Cohesion Policy. They are two different policies. And a robust budget is a budget that is the same as the one we had, adjusted for inflation. This is our starting point and we have already told the Prime Minister that a key point in the way in which agriculture will assess the actions of this Government will be the way in which the Government fights in Brussels on the issue of the multiannual financial framework and the autonomy of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The idea of ​​ending the two pillars of the CAP — direct aid and support for rural development — would that also be disastrous?

This is absolutely disastrous. It makes no sense at all. From my contacts with the Commissioner for Agriculture and other people in Brussels, I believe that this idea will be discarded , I hope. These are the signals I have been receiving. It makes no sense at all. One thing is the so-called direct payments to farmers, which are a question of ensuring farmers' income. The average income of farmers is 40% lower than the average for other incomes in the European Union. Obviously , if we want to have food sovereignty, it is necessary to maintain agriculture. Farmers need to stay in business, we need to guarantee their income. And another thing is rural development, which is the second pillar, where all the investment is, which needs to be guaranteed because without investment there is no modernisation, there is no competitiveness.

Speaking of competitiveness, how do you assess the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur, taking into account that South American farmers are much more competitive, in some products, compared to European agriculture?

The European Union cannot want to close itself off like an island in the world . This world is not made up of islands, and there are fewer and fewer of them, no matter how much President Trump's tariffs point in another direction. But President Trump, it seems, has also come to realize that he needs other countries. But we, as the European Union, must have friends in this world. We must have trade agreements that are mutually advantageous. Mercosur is an obvious agreement. Portugal, like Spain or Italy, has a lot to gain from the Mercosur agreement. To give an example: olive oil and wine, which are sectors in crisis. In serious crisis here in Portugal.

Wine is a sector in serious crisis here in Portugal. We need fundamental measures, measures to support farmers, which must be incorporated into the international reality.

I must express my solidarity with producers, especially in the Douro, given the particularly serious situation they are in. Once again, we need fundamental measures, measures to support farmers, which must be incorporated into the international reality. We have seen a decrease in international wine consumption, but we must invest more in promotion, and Mercosur is also a vehicle for this, it is a way for us to penetrate more potentially very interesting markets.

But there are negative aspects…

The negative effects, in my opinion, are very controlled because the negotiation imposed quotas on Mercosur producers on what they could export to Europe . There is obviously a lot that needs to change. Above all, we need to ensure that we are all on the same page in terms of what is required of each other. But the agreement itself is very positive overall and is essential for the wine sector.