Agriculture and trade, Marine Tondelier
Common Agricultural Policy: Aid per worker rather than per hectare, stricter capping
Direction of change: change of another kind, or uncertain direction, compared with current law.
The lever. Position on the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy: budget, distribution of aid, reform or exit. Direction rule: ↑ more aid.
« Soutenir une réforme juste de la Politique agricole commune (PAC) et adopter un Plan de Partenariat National Régional (PPNR) ambitieux. Orienter les négociations vers la transition vers l’agroécologie, la protection des revenus des paysan·nes et la protection de l’eau potable. Fonder les subventions sur le nombre d’actifs plutôt qu’à l’hectare avec un plafonnement plus strict des aides aux grandes exploitations. »1Translation by the editorsSupport a fair reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and adopt an ambitious National Regional Partnership Plan (PPNR). Steer the negotiations towards the transition to agroecology, the protection of farmers' incomes and the protection of drinking water. Base subsidies on the number of workers rather than per hectare, with stricter capping of aid to large farms.
Encoding
No cost-schedule parameter for this position: see the costing for the reason.
Costing
Announced by the candidate
not announced
The programme does not cost this measure.
Published costings
none
No external costing of this position recorded to date.
Our calculation
lever that cannot be costed
Lever with no coefficient in the cost schedule: the position is compared, not costed.
Current law, sources and limits of the cost schedule
Current law. The CAP national strategic plan 2023-2027 allocates French agriculture about €9.1bn a year (official document of 2022). Secondary sources give €9.4bn a year, of which €8.7bn for the PSN. The transfer from the first to the second pillar is 7.5%. The post-2027 EU financial framework is under negotiation.
Horizon. Not applicable.
Limits. The PAC (Common Agricultural Policy) is funded by the EU budget. A national position (capping, convergence, greening) redistributes the envelope with no net cost for the national budget. Only national co-financing of the second pillar or a substitute national aid would have a cost. If a candidate proposes to « renationaliser » [“renationalise”] the PAC, the cost would be about €9bn per year of national spending, less the reduction in the French contribution to the EU budget, which is not costed here.
- Ministère de l’Agriculture, « Le plan stratégique national PAC 2023-2027 », septembre 2022 (page 2), 2022-09: « « Le budget annuel de la PAC sur la période 2023-2027 pour l'agriculture française est consolidé avec le maintien de l'enveloppe de 9,1 milliards d'euros par an. » »
- Les cinq priorités du plan stratégique national de la PAC dévoilées (Banque des territoires): « « La France bénéficiera d'une enveloppe annuelle de 9,4 milliards d'euros par an pour la période 2023-2027, dont 8,7 milliards d'euros pour le PSN. » (lu via résultat de recherche) »
How to read these amounts. These are static costs and revenues, with no feedback effect, over a full year: nothing on growth, employment or the revenue that economic activity would gain or lose. A higher net cost does not on its own make a worse policy, nor net savings a better one: each programme rests on an economic model (demand-led stimulus, lower compulsory levies, consolidation of the public accounts…) that the cost schedule does not settle. GDP itself measures a volume of activity, not well-being or the usefulness of what is produced. Economic models and feedback effects.
- Pour une prospérité écologique – Le nouveau programme des Écologistes (Projet 2027), version 1 of 25 August 2026, p. 50. Open the document at this page.
Contest this encoding (prefilled email; procedure and deadlines)