The proposed CAP reform: why it falls short for farmers

The debate on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2027 comes at a crucial moment for European agriculture. The EU Commission's proposal raises fundamental concerns about the lack of a clear long-term vision, the scale of the proposed budget cuts, and the risks posed to the common nature of the policy.

This is why our Opinion on CAP post-2027 does not merely call for technical adjustments or targeted improvements but explicitly rejects the overall direction of the proposal. This level of unity is highly unusual within the EESC and reflects profound concerns regarding the strategic orientation of the reform.

At the core of our Opinion lies a fundamental critique of the proposal put forward by the European Commission. We consider that the proposed CAP for the period 2028–2034 lacks a clear long-term vision and coherent strategic objectives for European agriculture. The dominant budgetary logic — including a nominal reduction of approximately 20% and a substantially higher cut in real terms — is widely seen as incompatible with the increasing economic, environmental and social demands placed on farmers.

Our Opinion strongly opposes the dismantling of the two-pillar structure of the CAP and the reallocation of funding under the proposed National and Regional Partnership Fund. From the EESC’s perspective, this approach would lead to a de facto renationalisation of agricultural policy, undermine the integrity of the Single Market and weaken the predictability and effectiveness of rural development interventions. Maintaining separate, ring-fenced funding for the European agricultural guarantee fund (EAGF) and the European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) is therefore considered a prerequisite for a genuinely common agricultural policy.

With regard to direct payments, we support a more precise definition of genuine active farmers, while clearly rejecting mandatory degressivity and exclusions based on age or pension status. Such mechanisms risk further eroding farm incomes and accelerating structural decline, particularly in capital-intensive and production-oriented sectors. Generational renewal must be supported through additional and dedicated instruments, rather than through redistribution that weakens the economic viability of existing farms.

When it comes to environmental and climate measures, we advocate for a science-based, incentive-driven and adequately funded approach. Our Opinion cautions against mandatory requirements that could lead to reduced production, land abandonment or loss of competitiveness, especially in grassland-based and high-nature-value farming systems. Environmental ambition must be aligned with economic sustainability and food security objectives.

The broader political and social context of this Opinion further reinforces its relevance. At the time of the Opinion’s consideration, a large-scale farmers’ demonstration took place in Brussels, directly in front of the EU institutions. This mobilisation sent a clear signal that farmers are expressing their opposition, at European level, to the direction of the Commission’s proposed CAP reform, particularly with regard to budget cuts, increased administrative burdens and regulatory approaches perceived as detached from economic realities.

In conclusion, our Opinion NAT/960 represents one of the strongest and most coherent agrifood policy signals issued by the EESC in recent years. In a measured, yet unambiguous manner, the Opinion recalls that the CAP cannot be reduced to a budgetary or administrative exercise. A credible post-2027 CAP must be based on stable and inflation-adjusted funding, a genuinely common framework and policy choices grounded in the realities faced by farmers and rural communities. The exceptional unity demonstrated within the EESC on this file underscores the urgency of re-examining the proposed approach. The opportunity for responsible and informed decision-making now clearly lies with lawmakers.

Katalin Süle, EESC Employers' Group member and member of the Study Group of Opinion NAT/960 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2027.