The Common Agricultural Policy and the European Commission’s 2025 EU long-term budget proposals

<< Back to Newsletter

As a farmer, I might be accused of being biased here when I say that the common agricultural policy, or the CAP as it is more commonly known, has been an incredible success story for the EU and its 450 million citizens, particularly in terms of achieving its first two objectives set out below. Having been a farmers’ representative and active in farming politics for the past thirty years, I’m well aware that many people think that the CAP is for farmers only. On the contrary, the CAP benefits every citizen in the EU.

Established in 1962, it had three key aims:

  1. ensuring an adequate supply of safe food;
  2. ensuring that this food was affordable for the consumer; and
  3. generating a fair income for farmers.

There are few things that cause more anxiety, panic or concern amongst the citizens of any country than the threat of a food shortage. Just watch the media show empty shelves in supermarkets any time we have extreme weather, a pandemic or geo-political event.

While there have been many reforms and alterations to CAP over the years, those original aims – allied to the very important fact that it is a ‘common’ policy – have remained very much central to policy-makers’ thinking. Yes, the policy has shifted from production-focused market support to direct income support, environmental targets and rural development. This is mainly due to the fact that the policy gradually became a victim of its own success as far as sufficient affordable food for the citizens was concerned.

It’s probably fair to say that while very few CAP reforms were ever welcomed with open arms, farmers and their organisations could see some sort of purpose, direction, clear objectives or vision to the European Commission proposals; however, the Commission proposals for the CAP 2028-2034 from last July don’t appear to have any of the above. What those proposals do include are:

  1. a major cut of at least 20% to the CAP budget;
  2. a dismantling of the two-pillar model (Pillar 1: Direct Payments and Market Measures, and Pillar 2: Rural Development) under the National and Regional Partnership Fund; and
  3. a major threat to and an undermining of the ‘common’ aspect of the CAP.

Farmer's organisations, the European Parliament and local politicians were quick off the mark to voice their concerns and rejection of the proposals. I think it’s fair to say that the Commission’s own amendments in early November to their initial CAP proposals, linked to the EU's long-term budget for 2028-2034, were an acknowledgement that their original proposals were not fit for purpose. However, the proposals still fall far short of what is required from the Commission for a common policy that has served the EU extremely well for the past 63 years. I would go so far as to say that the entire EU project is anchored by the CAP and any dilution of it will have far reaching and very damaging consequences.

A dedicated standalone and properly funded budget adjusted for inflation is imperative. This budget needs to be equivalent to 0.5% of EU GDP. In 1993, this figure was 0.66%, but it slipped to an historic low of 0.29% in 2024.

As recently as late October 2025, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) – which is the Commission’s own science and research arm – published their ‘Scenar 2040’ study into the CAP comparing the status quo with three other scenarios, namely:

  1. directing CAP support towards food production and investment;
  2. directing CAP support towards environmental and climate measures; or
  3. abolishing the CAP entirely.

Although only intended as ‘food for thought’ as opposed to a ‘policy blueprint’, it certainly has provided lots of food for thought and as far as food production, emissions and the environment are concerned, the study clearly shows that the best scenario by far was to channel CAP support into improving ‘food production and investment’. The study highlights that not only would this lead to an increase in agricultural output, lower food prices and a stronger EU trade balance, but it would also result in a net reduction in global emissions from food production of 11 million tonnes. The other two scenarios in contrast would increase global emissions by 4 million tonnes and 8 million tonnes respectively.

Given that the world needs to produce 70% more food by 2050, this study very clearly shows that EU countries are not only amongst the safest and most regulated food producers in the world, but also the most carbon-efficient producers of food. Policy-makers would do well to recognise this – heed this study from their own science and knowledge arm – and in so doing, revisit their budget proposals for CAP and ensure that the policy is fit for purpose, and sufficiently funded to provide active farmers with the support they need to continue producing safe, affordable food, while enhancing the environment and making the agricultural sector more attractive and accessible to women and the younger generations.

Reactions to the Commission’s proposals

  • EU farming organisations and wider civil society networks reacted swiftly and critically to the Commission’s initial proposals for the CAP within the 2028–2034 EU long-term budget. Copa-Cogeca, representing European farmers and agri-cooperatives, warned that the proposed budget cuts and the dismantling of the two-pillar CAP structure would “renationalise” agricultural policy and undermine the common nature of the CAP:
    https://copa-cogeca.eu/press-releases
  • Several environmental and rural development networks, including the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and ARC2020, also expressed concern that weakening the CAP framework would reduce policy coherence and long-term sustainability in rural areas:
    https://eeb.org
    https://www.arc2020.eu
  • Within the EU institutions, opposition emerged rapidly. The European Parliament adopted resolutions criticising the scale of the proposed CAP budget cuts and reaffirming the need for a strong, common and properly funded CAP. Key concerns were raised in the Parliament's AGRI Committee and reflected in plenary debates:
    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/agri/home/highlights
    https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/home/home.do
  • At Council level, several Member States expressed reservations during initial discussions, emphasising the importance of food security, farm incomes and avoiding excessive renationalisation. These concerns are reflected in Council conclusions and Presidency summaries on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF):
    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-budgetary-system/multiannual-financial-framework/

What’s next?

The Commission’s proposals for the 2028–2034 MFF, including CAP financing and governance, now move fully into the legislative phase. The European Parliament and the Council will develop their respective negotiating positions, with the CAP elements discussed in parallel with overall MFF negotiations.

Key next steps include:

  • Continued examination and amendment of the proposals in the European Parliament (notably in the AGRI, ENVI, REGI and BUDG Committees);
  • Negotiations among Member States in the Council to establish a common position;
  • Interinstitutional negotiations (trilogues) once formal mandates are agreed.

Key sources and further reading

European Commission:

European Parliament:

Council of the European Union:

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):

EESC opinions on the future of the CAP and EU budget:


Joe HEALY (Ireland)

Member, Civil Society Organisations' Group

Representative, Irish Farmers Association (IFA)

© EU/EESC