Meet Our Members | Joe Healy: Why the CAP needs a bold reset - and how farmers can lead the way

Joe Healy is an active dairy farmer in Ireland and a representative of the Irish Farmers Association (IFA). He is currently the Chairman of the Board of the Agri Food Regulator which was set up to help suppliers against UTPs and to prepare reports that help bring more fairness and transparency to the marketplace. He is also the Chairman of Collaborative Finance – the agri lending wing of most of Ireland’s Rural Credit Unions. He has been an EESC member since 2020.

  1. You were recently the rapporteur of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2027 opinion and had the opportunity to present it on 8 April to the AGRI committee of the European Parliament during a one-hour debate. What are your takeaways from this exchange and wishes for the upcoming CAP? 

‘The EESC rejects the proposals’. Those proposals were the EU Commission’s from last July on the CAP 2028-2034 and this was the opening line from our NAT 960 opinion ‘Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2027. A clear, strong and bold introduction, and unprecedented for most, if not all present and voting at the EESC Plenary. 

No surprise then that it has caught the attention of other EU institutions, politicians and media particularly, given that it received overwhelming support from the large number of voters at the Plenary. One such institution was the AGRI committee of the European Parliament. They invited me in to present our opinion to them on 8 April, after which there were numerous comments, views and questions – almost agreeing with our stance and the reasons why we flatly rejected the proposals.

Key amongst the reasons for our rejection were:

  1. No clear objectives or long-term vision for EU agriculture.
  2. Totally inadequate budget for the CAP with an actual cut of over 20% to an already non-index linked for inflation figure.
  3. The dismantling of the successful and reliable two-pillar model of the CAP
  4. The erosion of the key ‘Common’ aspect which will likely lead to the re-nationalisation of Agricultural Policy.
  5. A failure to properly improve and strengthen farmers’ position in the Food Supply Chain.

Quite a number of MEPs made contact after the meeting, and some have been met over the following weeks to discuss further. Support was strong for our demands on the budget, 2nd Pillar and the importance of keeping the policy common.

It was interesting and positive to see that three weeks later on 28 April, a full session of the European Parliament voted to have funding for the next CAP increased back up to the current levels for the 2022-2027 round and to take account of inflation. The Parliament’s plan appears to also divide the CAP funding along the two-pillar system.

The ball is firmly back in the Commission’s court now, and Member States need to take the proposals and ensure a strong, adequately funded budget.

  1. You also recently served as rapporteur, for the first time, of an evaluation report (Evaluation of Common Agricultural Policy delivery on its objectives), that will be finalised and adopted at the EESC plenary in June. How would you describe this experience? What surprised you most, and what were the key lessons or challenges you encountered?

After this opinion on the next CAP, I was selected to be rapporteur on an Evaluation of the current Common Agricultural Policy and its delivery on its objectives (NAT 968). This is currently ongoing, with in-depth meetings with relevant groups, individuals and organisations across five countries namely Ireland, Spain, Austria, Romania and Italy. 

Our work is to focus on the: 

  1. Relevance of the CAP
  2. Effectiveness
  3. Added Value of Civil Society involvement

I was incredibly impressed by the preparation all those people had done for those meetings and the positivity for the CAP and its hugely important and effective role in supporting farmers’ incomes, especially in the face of market volatility, climate risks and geo-political shocks, safe-guarding food security for EU citizens, the environment and rural and peripheral areas. 

There are strong views on the need for the CAP budget to be robust and well-funded so that, along with its current deliveries, it will also be effective in ensuring that agriculture is more attractive to the next generation of young women and men. 

Structural inequalities, farmers’ position in the Food Supply Chain, mental health challenges, social conditionality, simplification and equivalence of standards in trade deals were some of the many other areas which generated lively discussion.

  1. You have recently taken on new roles within the committee, as co-spokesperson of the Farmers’ Category and as vice-president of the Permanent Group on Sustainable Food Systems. How do you see your role in these groups and, in your opinion, how do these groups support the EESC’s interinstitutional consultative role?    

As co-spokesperson for the Farmers’ Category and Vice President of the PG on sustainable food production, I feel that both those groups can play a pivotal and important advisory part in the EESC’s interinstitutional consultative role in furthering the cause and demands of EU farmers and the agri sector.

Our focus in the Farmers’ Category for 2026 centres on the CAP and Generation Renewal. Commissioner Hansen has agreed to attend our next meeting on 4 June, where the focus will most definitely be on the CAP, with our October meeting likely to involve MEP Maria Walsh, who is the Parliament’s lead negotiator on Generation Renewal.

Under the experienced and astute leadership of Maurizio Reale in the Permanent Group on Sustainable Food Production, our 1st meeting discussed global markets, developing the bio-economy, rules and standards, simplification (without undermining our internal market), conformity, trade deals, competitiveness, animal welfare, ag tech and the need to increase food production in the EU by 25% by 2050. 

The JRC’s report from last October ‘Scenar 2040’ also got a mention. In it they looked at three options for CAP funding and by far the most effective option was where more funding would go to food production in the EU. This would have a hugely positive return in both producing safer quality food and reducing net global emissions from agriculture by as much as 11m tons. This is certainly food for thought and must be pursued.