The future of the Common Agricultural Policy: Between Ambition and Uncertainty

On 16 July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposals for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and a sweeping reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), presenting it as a bold new course toward simplification and competitiveness. But can this reform deliver on its ambition? The proposals have already sparked widespread concern among farmers, policymakers, and rural advocates alike because beneath the surface of aspirational language lies a potentially destabilising shift, one that could reshape the future of European agriculture, rural development, and food security.

A Structural Overhaul with Budgetary Consequences

For decades, the CAP has served as a cornerstone of European integration. It has guaranteed food security, supported rural development, and incentivised environmental and animal welfare practices. Its two-pillar structure – direct payments and rural development – has provided clarity, continuity, and cohesion across Member States.

The Commission’s new proposals dismantle this structure, absorbing CAP into the broader National and Regional Partnerships Plans (NRPP) Regulation. This move raises some core questions: where does the CAP fit within the new budgetary architecture? What funding will be available to farmers? And how will this affect the commonality of agricultural policy across Europe?

While €294 billion is earmarked for CAP, this figure represents a real-term cut of over 20% compared to the previous budget cycle. These reductions are incompatible with the sector’s growing challenges, from climate change adaptation and biodiversity loss to rising consumer expectations and geopolitical instability.

Renationalisation and Fragmentation Risks

One of the pressing concerns is the risk of renationalisation. By embedding CAP within the NRPP framework, the policy’s “common” character is jeopardised. Member States will have greater discretion in implementing agricultural measures, potentially leading to fragmented priorities, uneven support, and a loss of cohesion in the internal market.

This decentralisation also threatens the intrinsic link between agricultural policy and rural development. Instead of fostering synergies, the new structure may create competition for funding across sectors. With rural development no longer anchored within CAP, national interpretations of budget plans could diverge significantly, undermining solidarity and shared goals.

Moreover, the proposed framework lacks the structural clarity of its predecessor. The CAP regulation is presented as a loose configuration of articles, with implementation and funding priorities left largely to Member States. This opacity could complicate administration and weaken accountability.

Farmers Call for a Course Correction

Farmers across Europe remain committed to European unity and want to continue contributing to a resilient, sustainable, and competitive agricultural sector, but the current proposals fall short of these goals. The following policy options should therefore be considered during the forthcoming co-decision process:

• Preserving CAP as an independent policy area with clear responsibilities and transparent procedures.
• Securing earmarked funding for agriculture within the CAP Regulation and across other relevant funds.
• Reducing bureaucracy by simplifying existing procedures rather than creating new administrative layers.
• Streamlining the green architecture to avoid overly stringent farm management rules.
• Focusing on incentive-based payments that reward sustainable practices and innovation.

The Stakes for Europe

European agriculture stands at a crossroads. Climate change, food security, and evolving social expectations demand a robust and unified response. The CAP has long provided a stable foundation for rural vitality and market cohesion. Undermining this foundation puts in jeopardy not only the livelihoods of farmers but also the integrity of the internal market and the EU’s broader strategic goals.

The Commission’s proposals, while ambitious in rhetoric, represent a risky departure from proven structures. As the co-decision process unfolds, policymakers must weigh the long-term consequences of these reforms. A change of course is urgently needed in the interests of farmers, consumers, and the very future of Europe’s rural landscape.

Florian Dalstein, EESC Employers' Group member