The European Commission is expected to safeguard the majority of farming subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in its forthcoming multiannual budget proposal, despite parallel efforts to redirect European Union funding towards areas such as defence, competitiveness, and digitalisation.
According to EU officials with knowledge of the ongoing discussions, most agricultural support—particularly direct income payments—will be preserved in a protected, standalone budget line, separate from the broader funding envelope being designed for national and regional partnerships. The Commission’s revised draft of the next seven-year financial framework, covering 2028–2034, is due in mid-July 2025.
This development follows extensive lobbying from agricultural stakeholders and comes in parallel with a report adopted this week by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), which firmly rejects any integration of CAP into a merged funding structure.
The AGRI Committee, in a vote held Monday (29 in favour, 9 against, 8 abstentions), called for an increased and standalone CAP budget post-2027, warning that subsuming CAP into a broader funding mechanism risks diluting its core purpose. MEPs stressed that agriculture remains a key pillar of EU strategic autonomy, particularly in the current geopolitical environment, where secure food production is increasingly linked to internal security and defence policy.
“CAP must remain a true common policy with dedicated funds and independent pillars, ensuring equal support for all European farmers,” said Carmen Crespo Díaz (EPP, Spain), the Committee’s rapporteur. “We strongly reject any attempts to nationalise the CAP or merge its funding with other EU instruments.”
Under the current €386 billion CAP framework, €291 billion—roughly three-quarters—is dedicated to direct income support. While the total CAP envelope is likely to be reduced in the next cycle, EU officials have indicated that direct payments will continue to be shielded, due to concerns that smaller farms would not survive without this income.
The remaining quarter of CAP funding is linked to environmental and climate objectives, including incentives for fallow land and biodiversity protection. However, several of these green conditions were softened in 2024 following widespread farmer protests across the bloc. Demonstrators cited excessive bureaucracy and financial strain as central grievances. The Commission subsequently simplified certain rules, including Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) requirements, to ease compliance.
The AGRI Committee supports these adjustments and is pushing for further administrative simplification in the next CAP cycle. MEPs advocate a system where farmers are rewarded for environmental and social outcomes through voluntary eco-schemes accompanied by remuneration. The use of satellite monitoring, self-certification, and a centralised digital reporting system is proposed to reduce the burden of on-farm inspections.
The Committee also calls for a more targeted support structure. Direct payments should be reserved for active, professional farmers, based on land area, and additional aid should be channelled to sectors in difficulty through voluntary coupled support. The CAP’s second pillar, which addresses rural development, must remain independent from cohesion policy and other regional development instruments.
A further priority identified by the Committee is generational renewal. With nearly 58 per cent of EU farmers aged over 55 and only 6 per cent under 35, MEPs are calling for increased CAP funding, as well as enhanced tax and loan incentives to support young entrants into farming.
Digitalisation is also central to the Committee’s vision. All farmers, regardless of size or region, should have access to technological solutions that enable sustainable practices and improved profitability. The report urges the Commission to integrate digital tools as standard components of future CAP implementation.
On the consumer side, the AGRI Committee has endorsed the introduction of harmonised labelling standards across the EU for agri-food products. Packaging should provide clear and consistent information on origin, quality, and production standards to help consumers make informed choices and avoid misleading claims.
The Committee’s report will proceed to a plenary vote, likely during the 8–11 September session of the European Parliament. Its adoption would set a strong political signal ahead of the Commission’s formal budget presentation.
Despite internal tensions within the EU executive—where some commissioners favour reallocating funds towards emerging priorities such as defence and social resilience—there is now mounting institutional support for retaining CAP as a distinct and adequately funded policy.
Several member states, notably Italy, Spain, and Poland, have also joined calls to preserve individual budget pillars, particularly regional development and agriculture, rather than subsuming them into a generalised funding pool. A joint statement signed by 14 countries insists that only a “distinct and robust budget” can ensure convergence and long-term cohesion across EU territories.
The Commission has so far declined to comment on the structure of the draft budget. However, the convergence of views among Parliament, farming constituencies and several national governments suggests that the CAP’s fundamental architecture—centred on direct payments and a dual-pillar model—is likely to endure.
