Balti riikide ja Soome põllumajandustootjate ühisdeklaratsiooni edastamine

. Regionaal- ja Põllumajandusministeerium Meie: 30.04.2026 nr 7-14/26-00886-2 Balti riikide ja Soome põllumajandustootjate ühisdeklaratsiooni edastamine Edastame peaministrile saabunud Balti riikide ja Soome põllumajandustootjate ühisdeklaratsiooni vastavalt valitsemisalale. Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Heili Tõnisson Valitsuse nõunik Lisad: Ühisdeklaratsioon koos lisadega Teadmiseks: Rahandusministeerium Stenbocki maja / Rahukohtu 3 / 15161 Tallinn / Estonia / registrikood 70004809 +372 693 5555 / [email protected] / www.riigikantselei.ee  Structural realities: evidence from the region Ants-Hannes Viira, PhD Head of Agricultural Policy Estonian Chamber of Agriculture and Commerce Baltic-Finnish Agricultural Leaders Meeting Brussels, 21 April 2026  Ha per capita 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Latvia 1.05 Lithuania 0.99 Ireland 0.83 Bulgaria 0.78 Estonia 0.71 Romania 0.66 Hungary 0.53 Source: own calculations based on Eurostat data Spain 0.50 Greece 0.48 agricultural land rich Denmark 0.44 France 0.41 Finland 0.40 Poland 0.39 Croatia 0.38 EU 0.35 Portugal 0.35 Slovakia 0.34 Czechia 0.32 Baltic states and Finland are relatively Sweden 0.28 Utilized agricultural area per capita, ha (2024) Austria 0.28 Slovenia 0.22 Italy 0.22 Germany 0.20 Luxembourg 0.20 Cyprus 0.13 Belgium 0.11 Netherlands 0.10 Malta 0.02  Despite agricultural land availability Baltic states and Finland is a net food importing region Trade balance, 2024 CEREALS 1,640 DAIRY PRODUCE; EGGS; HONEY 734 MILLING INDUSTRY PRODUCTS 197 +2.9 billion LIVE ANIMALS 184 OIL SEEDS 148 Euros PREPARATIONS OF MEAT OR FISH 34 VEGETABLE PLAITING MATERIALS -8 LAC; GUMS, RESINS, VEGETABLE EXTRACTS -31 ANIMAL PRODUCTS NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED -53 SUGARS AND SUGAR CONFECTIONERY -204 COCOA AND COCOA PREPARATIONS -305 MISC. EDIBLE PREPARATIONS -325 LIVE TREES AND OTHER PLANTS -340 MEAT AND EDIBLE MEAT OFFAL -367 VEGETABLES, CERTAIN ROOTS AND TUBERS -404 -6.7 billion FISH AND CRUSTACEANS, MOLLUSCS PREPARATIONS OF CEREALS, FLOUR -405 -421 Euros RESIDUES OF FOOD INDUSTRIES; ANIMAL FODDER -424 COFFEE, TEA, MATE AND SPICES -553 ANIMAL OR VEGETABLE FATS AND OILS -579 PREPARATIONS OF VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS -642 BEVERAGES, SPIRITS AND VINEGAR -691 FRUIT AND NUTS -914 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 MEUR Source: own calculations based on Eurostat data  Ha per capita 15,000 10,000 20,000 25,000 0 5,000 Netherlands 23,162 Malta 16,578 Belgium 8,638 Cyprus 7,385 Italy 5,441 Denmark 4,878 Source: own calculations based on Eurostat data Luxembourg 4,696 Germany 4,555 Austria 3,889 Slovenia 3,463 EU 3,300 Portugal 3,241 low agricultural productivity Greece 3,167 While land rich, the region has France 3,060 Ireland 2,759 agricultural area, 2024 Spain 2,757 Poland 2,733 Sweden 2,482 Finland 2,258 Croatia 2,020 Hungary 2,005 Czechia 1,946 Romania 1,605 Slovakia 1,518 Output of agricultural industry, production value at producer price per ha of utilised Lithuania 1,410 Estonia 1,310 Bulgaria 966 Latvia 956  Kg/ha 3000 1000 2000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0 Belgium 8,087 Netherlands 7,941 Ireland 7,784 Austria 7,037 Germany 7,006 France 6,763 Source: own calculations based by Eurostat data Slovenia 6,532 Croatia 6,507 Denmark 6,475 Czechia 5,982 Slovakia 5,734 Hungary 5,716 Luxembourg 5,649 EU 5,380 Sweden 5,372 Bulgaria 5,158 Portugal 5,132 Crop productivity is lower in the North Italy 5,116 Weigthed average cereals yield, 2020-2024 Poland 4,770 Lithuania 4,293 Latvia 4,054 Greece 4,002 Romania 3,960 Estonia 3,861 Spain 3,587 Finland 3,412 Cyprus 2,011  Baltic countries are facing productive assets gap that carries over to output gap Machinery and buildings Total output 3500 3500 3000 3000 2500 2500 EU 2000 2000 Euro/ha Euro/ha Estonia 1500 1500 Latvia Lithuania 1000 1000 Finland 500 500 0 0 2010 2020 2022 2006 2010 2004 2006 2008 2012 2014 2016 2018 2004 2008 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Agricultural output is correlated to productive assets 3500 3000 Total output, Euros/ha 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Machinery and buildings, Euros/ha Estonia EU Latvia Lithuania Finland Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  In the Baltic States, productivity gap with EU is widening, in Finland, the gap remains large Productivity gap with the EU average Lithuania Estonia Finland Latvia 0.1 0.03 Productivity = 0.0 value of output / -0.1 -0.1 total costs of inputs -0.2 -0.11 -0.2 -0.17 -0.17 -0.3 -0.19 -0.3 -0.25 -0.4 -0.4 -0.36 -0.39 -0.5 2004-2013 2014-2023 Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Direct payments are converging to the EU average Direct payments 600 500 400 EU Euros/ha 300 Estonia Latvia 200 Lithuania Finland 100 0 2007 2008 2009 2017 2018 2019 2004 2005 2006 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2020 2021 2022 2023 Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Farm net income gap is increasing Farm net income per ha compared to the EU Farm net income per ha compared to the EU average average Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland 0% 0 -10% -100 -20% -150 -30% -28% -200 -40% -238 -300 -50% -44% -49% -320 -60% -55% -400 -367 -354 -388 -70% -443 -68% -67% -500 -72% -80% -542 -90% -84% -600 2004-2013 2014-2024 2004-2013 2014-2024 Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Farm net income variation has increased Farm net income 1,000 900 800 700 600 Euros/ha 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 2004-2013 2014-2023 2004-2013 2014-2023 2004-2013 2014-2023 2004-2013 2014-2023 2004-2013 2014-2023 EU Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Average Min Max Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Without subsidies, average farms in the Baltic states and Finland would not survive Farm net income without subsidies Lithuania Estonia Finland Latvia EU 400 298 300 206 200 133 100 70 Euros/ha 0 -100 -7 -12 -37 -200 -105 -300 -400 -500 -600 -504 -496 2004-2013 2014-2023 Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Revenues vs costs growth in the region less favorable than the EU average Changes in revenues and costs, 2019-2023 vs 2004-2008 1000 900 43 800 15 45 700 90 108 46 97 8 Interest paid 84 8 40 600 35 70 34 71 26 65 11 Rent paid Euros/ha 500 94 75 176 125 908 102 198 Wages paid 400 210 625 121 126 682 Depreciation 300 567 621 200 414 Total farming overheads 358 276 267 284 100 Total specific costs 0 Balance subsidies & taxes on investments -68 -100 -16 -7 Balance of subsidies and taxes Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Total output EU Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  Structural change is rapid Change in number of agricultural holdings, 2007-2023 200% 125% 150% 105% 86% 79% 100% 52% 39% 36% 34% 34% 50% 20% 469% 0% -5% -8% -9% -9% -11% -12% -20% -24% -28% -30% -30% -32% -32% -50% -35% -37% -38% -38% -38% -38% -43% -44% -45% -48% -48% -48% -49% -50% -49% -50% -53% -53% -54% -60% -62% -64% -65% -100% -85% -87% -87% -150% <2 ha 2-4.9 ha 5-9.9 ha 10-19.9 ha 20-29.9 ha 30-49.9 ha 50-99.9 ha 100-249.9 ha ≥250 ha Total EU Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Source: own calculations based by Eurostat data  25% 30% 35% 10% 15% 20% 40% 45% 0% 5% 1% 0 ha 5% 40% 0-<2 ha 4% 21% 2-4.9 ha 6% 13% 5-9.9 ha 7% 9% Share of holdings 10-19.9 ha 9% 4% 20-29.9 ha 7% EU average, 2023 4% 30-49.9 ha 10% 4% 50-99.9 ha Share of output 16% 3% 100-249.9 ha 19% 1% ≥250 ha Source: own calculations based by Eurostat data 16% 10% 30% 35% 15% 20% 25% 40% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 1% 0 ha 2% 2% 0 ha 9% 17% 0-<2 ha 2% 2% 0-<2 ha 0% 31% 2-4.9 ha 6% 5% 2-4.9 ha 0% 20% 5-9.9 ha 25% 5% 5-9.9 ha 1% 13% Share of holdings 10-19.9 ha 19% Share of holdings 6% 10-19.9 ha 1% 4% 20-29.9 ha 8% 4% 20-29.9 ha 2% Lithuania, 2023 Estonia, 2023 4% 30-49.9 ha 9% 6% 30-49.9 ha 2% 5% 50-99.9 ha 9% Share of output 12% 50-99.9 ha Share of output 5% 3% 100-249.9 ha 11% 22% 100-249.9 ha 13% 2% ≥250 ha 8% 36% ≥250 ha 65% 15% 20% 40% 10% 25% 30% 35% 0% 5% 30% 60% 10% 20% 40% 50% 0% by relatively larger farms than EU average 0% 0 ha 1% 2% 0 ha 3% Baltic states and Finland are characterized 1% 0-<2 ha 19% 4% 0-<2 ha 1% 1% 2-4.9 ha 25% 2% 2-4.9 ha 2% 14% 5-9.9 ha 19% 3% 5-9.9 ha 4% 19% Share of holdings 10-19.9 ha 13% Share of holdings 4% 10-19.9 ha 4% 13% 20-29.9 ha 5% 4% Finland, 2023 20-29.9 ha Latvia, 2023 3% 16% 30-49.9 ha 5% 8% 30-49.9 ha 4% 20% 50-99.9 ha Share of output 23% 5% 50-99.9 ha Share of output 11% 13% 100-249.9 ha 4% 37% 100-249.9 ha 15% 2% ≥250 ha 3% 12% ≥250 ha 54%  EU member states are not equally vulnerable to potential cuts in subsidies Effect of cut in subsidies on farm net income, 2019-2023 average Netherlands Luxembourg Lithuania Denmark Germany Romania Slovenia Hungary Slovakia Portugal Bulgaria Belgium Czechia Sweden Estonia Finland Croatia Greece Cyprus Austria Poland Ireland France Latvia Spain Italy EU 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% Source: own calculations based on European Commission FSDN data  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Belgium 5.7 Malta 3.7 Ireland 2.9 Germany 2.8 EU 2.7 Italy 2.4 Sweden 2.3 Netherlands 2.3 Source: own calculations based by Eurostat data Austria 2.3 Poland 2.3 Spain 2.2 Czechia 2.1 Baltic States and Finland Finland 2.0 Cyprus 2.0 France 1.9 Denmark 1.9 Slovakia 1.8 Estonia 1.8 Slovenia 1.7 Food industry output/Agricultural output Food industry is underdeveloped in the Croatia 1.6 Luxembourg 1.5 Bulgaria 1.4 Portugal 1.4 Hungary 1.3 Latvia 1.2 Lithuania 1.2 Greece 1.1 Romania 0.6 Conclusions • Baltic states and Finland as a region is not food self-sufficient • Northern climatic conditions, productive assets gap, and in the case of Baltic states, the subsidy gap are hindering food production • Farms in the region are less productive and have lower farm income • Farm income variation has increased over time • In the region, structural change of farms is more rapid, and larger farms provide relatively more output compared to the EU average • Farms and food production in the region are vulnerable to subsidy cuts • Food industry in the region is still underdeveloped and investments are needed • The region as a whole deserves special attention to improve the resilience and preparedness of food production  BALTIC–FINNISH JOINT DECLARATION ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD SECURITY AND COMPETITIVENESS Estonia · Latvia · Lithuania · Finland Brussels, 21 April 2026 We, the leaders and representatives of agricultural organisations from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland, meeting at the European Parliament in Brussels on 21 April 2026, adopt this joint declaration addressed to our governments, the European Commission and the European Parliament ahead of the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2027. We represent farmers, food producers and rural communities in four EU Member States that share a direct border with the aggressor state, Russia. We stand on the eastern front line of European freedom, stability and food sovereignty. We speak from a position of experience, not fear. Agriculture and food production are not ordinary economic sectors, but essential components of strategic security. For the Baltic States and Finland, the ability to produce food domestically, maintain viable rural communities and sustain investment across the food chain is directly linked to national resilience and collective European security. This strategic dimension must be formally recognised in the architecture of the next CAP and MFF. The negotiating positions being formed today on the CAP and MFF will have direct and measurable consequences for food production capacity, rural viability and investment conditions in our countries. This declaration sets out the structural evidence, the specific challenges and the concrete policy demands that reflect our shared situation. 1. Food security in Baltics and Finland is a pillar of European security Sharing a direct border with the aggressor state is the defining structural reality of agriculture and rural entrepreneurship in our region. Since February 2022, our regions face consistent pattern of consequences: land values in border-adjacent areas have come under downward pressure, triggering demands from banks for additional collateral that many farm businesses, already strained by years of difficult economic conditions, simply do not have. The cost of capital has risen, insurance costs have increased and investment decisions are being delayed or reconsidered. Among farmers, especially young farmers, the willingness to take on long-term debt and capital- intensive investment has fallen markedly. Despite all of this, our farmers remain. They continue to produce, adapt, consolidate and professionalise their operations under competitive pressure that no other EU farming community faces. We ask the EU to recognize, reward and support this resilience. Our rural communities are present where others are not. They produce food, maintain the landscape and are often the first to observe and report unusual activity in areas that matter for European security. Food security in our four countries carries a significance that goes beyond supply chains and trade balances. When you share a border with a state that has demonstrated a willingness to weaponise energy, infrastructure and food access, the ability to produce your own food in secure but also in turbulent times is a component of national and total defence. For the Baltic States and Finland, food self-sufficiency is a security imperative, not merely an economic objective. Brussels, 21 April 2026 | European Parliament | Room A5F385 | 21 April 2026 Keeping farms viable, keeping rural areas populated, and keeping food production capacity intact in these regions is a direct contribution to European strategic autonomy and it must be recognised and supported as such in the next CAP and MFF. 2. Decades of unequal support must not now be deepened by capping and degressivity For more than two decades following EU accession, farmers in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have received significantly lower income support per hectare than farmers in older Member States. This support deficit has accumulated year after year. It was not justified by lower costs. Input costs, interest rates and labour costs in our countries have converged towards Western European levels, while support levels have not. Decades of lower support have created a structural investment gap that must now be closed. Our farmers responded to this competitive disadvantage the only rational way available to them: they scaled up, specialised, automated and optimised their production systems. The Baltic agricultural sector today is structurally larger and more capital-intensive than it would have been under fairer support conditions. This adaptation must not now be used as a justification to cut support further through capping or degressivity instruments that penalise farm size without regard for structural necessity. 3. Our demands for the CAP and MFF post-2027 3.1 Fair distribution of agricultural income support across Member States The restructuring of EU agricultural income support into a degressive area-based system with a mandatory floor of 130 EUR/ha does not guarantee a fair distribution of support across Member States nor does it deliver more stable farm income. The nearly 1:2 ratio between the lowest and highest permitted levels risks institutionalising the competitive disadvantage that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have faced for two decades. This is compounded by a fiscal reality unique to our region: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are allocating a rising share of national budgets to defence, leaving significantly less room for national co-financing of agricultural investment. Member States that carry a disproportionate security burden on behalf of the Union cannot simultaneously be left at the lower end of the EU agricultural support distribution without a corrective mechanism. We call for an allocation methodology that delivers genuinely fair outcomes, not merely a formally common framework within which structural inequalities persist. 3.2 Establishment of an Eastern Border Rural Resilience Envelope to support food security We call for the establishment of a dedicated financial envelope within the next MFF, ring-fenced for agriculture, food production and rural sustainability, targeting specifically the Baltic States and Finland as the EU Member States that share a direct border with Russia and have fully decoupled their energy systems from Russian infrastructure. This is a qualitatively different level of exposure from that faced by other eastern border Member States. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland bear the direct and unmediated geopolitical and economic consequences of proximity to the aggressor state, without the buffer of intervening third countries or continued energy dependencies. This envelope must be structured as non-repayable grant support with mandatory earmarking at EU level that cannot be diluted or reallocated by Member States during implementation. It should: ▸ be provided as direct grant support, not loans or blended finance instruments; Brussels, 21 April 2026 | European Parliament | Room A5F385 | 21 April 2026 ▸ compensate for higher investment costs, elevated risk premiums and constrained access to private capital in border-adjacent areas; ▸ be earmarked exclusively for investments in farm infrastructure, food processing capacity, food self-sufficiency, the reduction of critical dependencies and improvements in rural sustainability; ▸ include mandatory earmarking at EU level to ensure that Member State governments cannot redirect these resources away from agriculture and food production. We call on the European Commission to develop this support concept with a clearly defined budgetary envelope, mandatory earmarking for agriculture, food production and rural sustainability, and a legal framework that guarantees its agricultural purpose cannot be diluted in implementation. 3.3 A Strong, independent and adequately financed CAP We call for the CAP to remain a common EU policy with its own dedicated regulation and independent budget line. Splitting CAP rules across multiple regulatory frameworks would createe unnecessary complexity, legal uncertainty and administrative burden for farmers and national administrations alike. The CAP budget must be maintained at least at its current real-terms level and adjusted for inflation. The allocation of NRPP resources must be ring-fenced for rural or agricultural purposes. 3.4 Flexibility on capping and degressivity We recognise capping and degressivity as legitimate instruments within the CAP toolkit, including in the context of a potential future EU enlargement. However, the application of these instruments must account for the structural diversity of agricultural sectors across Member States. The reasons differ in each of our countries, but the conclusion is the same: uniform rules risk producing unfair outcomes if applied without adequate flexibility. The Baltic States developed larger, more capital-intensive farm structures as a rational response to decades of lower support levels and the competitive pressure to achieve economies of scale. Finland’s agricultural sector operates under fundamentally different structural conditions: greater distances from markets, a short and climatically constrained growing season, and higher costs on environmental and animal welfare standards. Applying mandatory capping or degressivity uniformly across all Member States, without regard for these structural realities, risks undermining the viability of farms that have adapted to conditions shaped by EU policy itself. Member States must therefore retain sufficient flexibility to decide on the necessity and degree of capping and degressivity, taking into account their specific production structures, labour costs, climatic conditions, market distances and the compliance costs associated with environmental and animal welfare obligations. A common policy must be able to accommodate genuinely different realities. Such flexibility would safeguard competitiveness, employment and sustainable rural development, while ensuring fairness and cohesion across the European Union. 3.5 Social conditionality must be removed from CAP conditionality The inclusion of social conditionality lacks justification within an agricultural policy framework as labour law obligations in our Member States are already comprehensively regulated at national level and constitute a sufficient basis for employer compliance in the agricultural sector. Retaining social conditionality in the CAP creates disproportionate administrative burden, generates no policy added value, and risks imposing double penalties on farmers in cases of non-compliance. We call on the European Commission and the European Parliament to remove social conditionality from the CAP conditionality framework in the post-2027. 3.6 EU-level instruments must be proportionate and genuinely accessible to smaller Member States Brussels, 21 April 2026 | European Parliament | Room A5F385 | 21 April 2026 EU-level agricultural and food industry support instruments are formally open to all Member States, but in practice they are often designed around the administrative capacities and scale of larger Member States. The Baltic States and Finland, each with relatively small agricultural sectors and limited administrative resources, are systematically disadvantaged in accessing EU-level schemes. We call for all EU-level instruments in the next MFF to include explicit proportionality requirements that ensure genuine accessibility for smaller Member States and for smaller agricultural and food sector organisations, including co-financing rules that do not create disproportionate burdens for countries with constrained national budgets. 3.7 A dedicated budget line for agriculture and food production within all relevant EU funds Agriculture, food processing and the broader bioeconomy value chain are directly linked to food security and strategic autonomy. Yet under both the current and proposed funding architecture, food processing investments are required to compete for resources with unrelated sectors that do not carry a comparable food security function. Our organisations call for dedicated, ring-fenced budget lines for food production and processing within all relevant EU funds. 4. Our commitment and our message to the EU institutions The agricultural sectors of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland have demonstrated resilience and adaptability under conditions that no other EU farming community faces. Production has continued, structures have modernised, and rural areas have remained inhabited and economically active despite the geopolitical pressures of operating on the border with the aggressor state. The demands set out in this declaration are grounded in structural evidence and reflect the specific realities of our region. They are not requests for special treatment but calls for fair treatment, for policy that accurately reflects the costs, risks and strategic value of food production in our region. We call on the European Commission and the European Parliament to: ▸ formally recognise agriculture and food production as a component of European strategic security in the legal objectives of the CAP and MFF post-2027; ▸ ensure legally safeguarded, fair and earmarked support for agriculture, food production and rural sustainability in Member States bordering the aggressor state; ▸ present a dedicated Eastern Border Food Security and Rural Resilience Support concept with a clearly defined budgetary envelope and mandatory earmarking for agriculture, food production and rural sustainability; ▸ maintain a strong, independent CAP with a dedicated budget that is not subordinated to other EU funding frameworks; ▸ ensure the allocation methodology for income support delivers genuinely fair and income- stabilising outcomes across Member States, rather than merely a formally common framework within which structural inequalities persist; ▸ remove social conditionality from CAP conditionality, recognising that labour law obligations in our Member States provide a sufficient and appropriate regulatory framework for the agricultural sector; ▸ ensure that Member States retain sufficient flexibility on capping and degressivity rules that reflect their specific acticultural structural realities and socio-economic conditions; ▸ ensure that the strategic security dimension of agriculture in Member States bordering the aggressor state is formally recognised in the CAP objectives and MFF architecture. We call on our national governments to: Brussels, 21 April 2026 | European Parliament | Room A5F385 | 21 April 2026  From: EPKK <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 4:36 PM To: Riigikantselei - RK <[email protected]> Subject: Balti riikide ja Soome põllumajandustootjate ühisdeklaratsioon põllumajanduse, toidujulgeoleku ja konkurentsivõime kohta Lugupeetud peaminister Edastame Teile Eesti, Läti, Leedu ja Soome põllumajandustootjate katusorganisatsioonide ühisdeklaratsiooni põllumajanduse, toidujulgeoleku ja konkurentsivõime kohta, mis allkirjastati 21. aprillil 2026 Euroopa Parlamendis Brüsselis. Deklaratsioon on suunatud Euroopa Liidu järgmise mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku (MFF) ja ühise põllumajanduspoliitika (ÜPP) 2027+ läbirääkimistele. Meie nelja riigi põllumajandussektoris on võrreldes teiste ELi riikidega Euroopa idapiiril oluliselt erinevad struktuursed väljakutsed: madalam tootlikkus, tootmisvarade puudujääk, suurem sõltuvus toetustest, piirialade kapitali- ja investeerimispiirangud ning kasvav kaitsekulutuste osakaal riigieelarvetes. Need tegurid mõjutavad otseselt põllumajandustootjate konkurentsivõimet ning regiooni toidutootmise võimekust. Deklaratsiooni põhisõnumid:  Toidujulgeolek on osa Euroopa julgeolekust. ÜPP ja MFF 2027+ õiguslikes eesmärkides tuleb põllumajandus ja toidutootmist tunnustada Euroopa strateegilise julgeoleku osana, eriti agressorriigiga piirnevates liikmesriikides.  Otsetoetused tuleb liikmesriikide vahel jaotada õiglaselt. Kavandatav 130 EUR/ha alampiir ning ligi kahekordne vahe madalaima ja kõrgeima toetustaseme vahel jätab püsima konkurentsipuudujäägi, mis on Eestis, Lätis ja Leedus kahe aastakümne jooksul kumuleerunud. Liikmesriike, kes kannavad ebaproportsionaalselt suurt julgeolekukoormust, ei tohi samal ajal jätta EL toetuste jaotuse alumisse otsa.  Eraldi idapiiri toetusümbrik (Eastern Border Rural Resilience Envelope). EL tasandil tuleb luua sihtotstarbeline rahastusümbrik, mis on suunatud põllumajandusele, toidutootmisele ja maaelu jätkusuutlikkusele neljas Venemaaga vahetult piirnevas liikmesriigis. Liikmesriigid ei tohi neid vahendeid rakendamisel muudele sektoritele suunata.  Tugev, iseseisev ja piisavalt rahastatud ÜPP. ÜPP peab jääma EL ühispoliitikaks, millel on oma määrus ja eelarverida ning mille reaalväärtus säilib.   Paindlikkus põllumajandustoetuste ümberjaotamise ja ülempiiri osas. Liikmesriikidele tuleb jätta piisav paindlikkus, mis arvestab meie regiooni struktuurseid eripärasid: Balti riikides on välja kujunenud suuremad ja kapitalimahukamad põllumajandusettevõtted just madalamate toetustega kohanemise tulemusel.  Sotsiaalne tingimuslikkus tuleb ÜPP tingimuslikkusest välja jätta. Tööõigus on meie liikmesriikides juba põhjalikult reguleeritud. Sotsiaalne tingimuslikkus tekitab põllumajandustootjatele põhjendamatu halduskoormuse, kuid ei lisa poliitilist lisaväärtust.  EL toetusinstrumendid peavad olema kättesaadavad ka väikestele liikmesriikidele. Kõik EL tasandi instrumendid peavad olema tegelikult ligipääsetavad ka väiksematele liikmesriikidele ning väiksematele põllumajandus- ja toiduainetööstusettevõtetele.  Toidutootmisele eraldi eelarveread kõigis EL fondides. Toiduainetööstuse ja biomajanduse väärtusahela investeeringutele tuleb EL fondides eraldada omaette eelarveread, et need ei peaks konkureerima sektoritega, millel toidujulgeolekuga otsest seost ei ole. Eesti Põllumajandus-Kaubanduskoda peab oluliseks, et Eesti riik kaitseks neid seisukohti järjepidevalt nii MFF kui ka ÜPP 2027+ läbirääkimistel ning tagaks, et Eesti põllumajanduse ja toidutootmise strateegiline tähtsus piiririigi tingimustes saaks Euroopa Liidu poliitikas kohase tunnustuse ja toetuse. Oleme valmis pakkuma täiendavat statistilist ja analüütilist tausta regiooni põllumajandussektori struktuuriliste väljakutsete kohta. Lisad: 1. Balti-Soome ühisdeklaratsioon põllumajanduse, toidujulgeoleku ja konkurentsivõime kohta (21.04.2026) 2. Ettekanne „Structural realities: evidence from the region" (Ants-Hannes Viira, 21.04.2026) Lugupidamisega Kerli Ats Juhatuse esinaine Eesti Põllumajandus-Kaubanduskoda Alevi tn 3-2, 11313 Tallinn/ +372 5647 5660 www.epkk.ee