Crop insurance reform
reserved for subscribers
Although they generally welcome the vote on the orientation law relating to a better distribution of crop insurance in agriculture and reforming the tools for managing climate risks, agricultural professionals are expressing some concerns about the decrees and ordinances to come.
Following the vote in Mixed parity commission of the orientation law relating to a better distribution of crop insurance in agriculture and reforming the tools for managing climate risks in agriculture, agricultural professionals shared their demands for rapid progress on the decrees and ordinances that will stall the final elements of the reform (intervention threshold, compensation rate, subsidy rate).
A necessary consultation of the actors
For the majority unions, the text is “a major step forward to face the challenge of climate change tomorrow”.
FNSEA and JA are now asking for rapid progress on the points that will have to be defined by ordinance and decrees as well as consultation with all the players in the sectors within the Commission responsible for the orientation and development of insurance (Codar).
Concerns about thresholds in field crops
The field crop producers (1) welcome the implementation of the Omnibus regulation, “a long-standing request from the agricultural world” which lowers the triggering threshold to 20% and increases the insurance premium subsidy rate to 70% .
If they also welcome their eligibility for national solidarity, in the event of so-called exceptional harvest losses, they are also concerned about the establishment of trigger thresholds by crop, defined according to the development of the insurance offer. “Such an approach should not be likely to slow down the development of multi-risk climate insurance and be penalizing for the sectors already involved”, they underline.
Modef preaches for a mutual insurance fund
For his part, the mod declares its opposition to the crop insurance reform law. The union fears that the government will push for private insurance by reducing the share of public intervention, through national solidarity.
Instead, the union calls for the establishment of a mutual insurance fund financed by farmers, the State, insurers and the endorsement of the sectors which would compensate 100% for the losses suffered.