The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is once again being trimmed down to size, with the Commission reaching for the shears in an attempt to cut back what it sees as an overgrown subsidy programme. But it’s not just the deadwood that is being cut away, but also some of its remaining green shoots. Natasha Foote brings you the latest from Brussels.
Cutting back the deadwood and overgrowth stimulates growth, giving space to new green shoots — but can the same be said for the latest pruning of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)?
That was the big question on everyone’s lips last Wednesday (May 14) as the Commission formally presented (although the word was already out) its latest plans to simplify the CAP in efforts to boost farmers’ competitiveness.
As ARC2020 already reported in the leak of the plans, the Commission offers ideas to tackle administrative burden in the CAP, aiming to smooth implementation and bolster crisis response as well as the investment needs of the sector.
So what has finally been put on the table? In a nutshell, it’s a mixed bag. Here’s a quick overview of the key changes before we get into what this all means:
Loosening environmental conditions: GAEC 1, which protects permanent grasslands, will be loosened to allow for grassland reconversion up to 10% instead of the previous 5%. GAEC 2 on peatland protection has survived, but it would now be up to member states to decide how best to protect them. The same goes for GAEC 4, which is there to protect water courses, the interpretation for which would now be up to EU countries. The obligation to tie CAP Strategic Plans with new climate and environmental laws has been cut.
Organic farmers: will be considered “green by definition” – aka, automatically compliant with a range of environmental conditions, in efforts to make things smoother
Small farmers: Likewise, small farms (which currently means under 10 hectares) will also be exempted from certain environmental rules. Small farms are also being offered streamlined financial support, able to receive a lump sum of €50,000 to help them grow their business, and they’ve also lightened the controls for farms below 10 hectares
Fewer farm controls: A ‘one and done’ approach is being taken to controls on farms, with a new principle meaning there can be only one on-the-spot check per year per farm. Controls will also be “streamlined” through the use of satellite and technology
More power to member states: Member States will also have a greater flexibility in adapting their CAP Strategic Plans, with prior approval from the Commission required only for strategic amendments
Creating crisis payments: Additional crisis payments available via CAP Strategic Plans, designed to support EU farmers affected by unforeseen circumstances such as natural disasters or animal diseases
So what does this all mean?
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try…. try, try, try and try again
This is not the first time that the Commission has tweaked this round of the CAP reform. It’s not even the second, or the third.. It’s in fact the sixth consequential shake-up of the policy, including now two simplification packages and a raft of derogations, since the deal was signed and sealed by all parties back in 2021.
Far from the legislative stability that farmers have been calling for, this moving goalpost approach may actually create more uncertainties about what is expected of farmers, or what is legal or not in the CAP application forms, most of which are being submitted this month.
And none of these changes have been accompanied by an impact assessment.
Instead, the calculations come from a staff working document outlining “estimates based on available data, evidence and key assumptions, while noting uncertainties and limitations”.
That means the EU executive’s assessment of the impact of the proposal, such as claims the changes could save up to “€1.58 billion annually for farmers and €210 million for national administrations,” amounts to little more than back-of-napkin calculations. It also means that there have been no in-depth impact assessments on the environmental consequences of the changes.
Back to the roots, fewer green shoots
So, is this an environmental backtracking? Well, depends who you ask – certainly not if you ask the Commission.
“Let me be very clear: we are in the greenest CAP ever and this direction will not change,” affirmed Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen at the unveiling of the proposal, stressing that the ambition “remains the same”.
But not everyone agrees on this point. Despite some positives, such as the flexibility that extends the time limit before the permanent grassland definition takes effect, there is still plenty to spark concerns among environmental organisations.
“Rather than genuinely making rules simpler, this move appears to be a veiled attempt to weaken the few remaining environmental safeguards within the CAP – posing serious consequences for both farmers and nature,” Giulia Riedo, Sustainable Food Policy Officer at the WWF European Policy Office, said.
A major concern is that the Commission is “slowly dismantling the GAEC system and creating competition with funds for eco-schemes,” the group said. Eco-schemes are voluntary measures which are supposed to reward farmers for going a step further, rather than just doing the bare minimum.
Meanwhile, the group warns that the removal of the link between CAP national strategic plans and wider environmental and climate obligations amounts to a “weakening of the green backbone of EU legislation”.
Others point out that the lack of conditions on the new complementary crisis payments – which, for example, will not be linked to workers’ rights – mean that the move “weakens the protection of farm workers and undermines responsible employers who uphold workers’ rights and face unfair competition from those who do not.”
“This is not simplification: this is deregulation,” Fabrizio De Pascale, Agriculture Sector President for the trade union EFFAT, said, adding that the “hard-fought achievement of the current CAP reform” raises serious concerns about future derogations—particularly as we approach the debate on the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy.
More power to member states
The other thing to note is that this proposal was always justified by easing the burden on farmers. Yet it appears most of the measures are clearly for administrations not farmers, especially given that most of the complexity is created by the interpretation of EU law.
Although the Commission argues that this simplification will ‘trickle down’ to farmers, it ultimately puts the main argument – that this is to make farmers’ lives easier – into question.
Moreover, in doing so, it passes more power to member states to make their own decisions. For instance, if this proposal is approved, member states will no longer have to get the Commission’s approval for each change they make to their CAP plans, unless it is considered “strategic” (read: to do with money). That means the Commission could lose oversight on other tweaks and changes, for example when it comes to managing the environmental aspects of the CAP.
On the one hand, offering more flexibility to member states could be a way to better target support to where it needs to go. But it also runs the risk of fragmenting the approach to the EU’s farming policy, losing the emphasis on the C of the CAP.
It also means that the impact of the changed environmental measures, such as GAECs 2 and 4, depend very much on the individual member states’ own interpretations.
And this is just a taste of what is to come, setting the stage for deeper nationalisation of this ‘common’ agricultural policy, running the risk of what COPA-COGECA secretary general Elli Tsiforou called a “27 speed CAP” at a recent event on the back of the announcement of the simplification package.
“Future simplification efforts must not undermine the common nature of the CAP or open the door to uncontrolled renationalisation,” the association said in a statement.
What’s next?
This proposal is not the end of the story, but simply the starting point for discussions between lawmakers in the European Parliament and Council, who will debate the proposal over the next few months to come up with their own view on the package.
In this process, either may add their own flavour to the proposal, including introducing new amendments, which also leaves the door open to go further in weakening environmental protections – something that green NGOs are all too aware of, with many already calling on lawmakers to “not use this simplification process to lower the environmental ambitions of the CAP”.
Time will tell which elements of the proposal survive the process – and which may change, for better or for worse. ARC will guide you through all the bumps in the road on the way to a final deal.
This article is produced in cooperation with the
Heinrich Böll Stiftung European Union.
More
LEAK – Sneak Peek At New EU Farming Policy Simplification Shake-Up
Spilling Europe’s Dirty Secrets: Uncorking the Toxic Trade in Banned Pesticides
EU’s Competitiveness Compass – North-Pointing or are Things Heading South for Agri Policy?
LEAK: A sneak peek at the EU’s new blueprint for agrifood policy
The EU Agri-Food Playbook 2025 – What to expect, why it matters
Ukraine – The Elephant in the Room that Could Unlock CAP Reform
Do the 28 CAP Strategic Plans Progress Fairness for Farmers?
CAP not Matching Europe’s Green Ambitions, say Auditors (again)
CAP Strategic Plans: A European Food and Agricultural Policy for Times of War
Re-CAP: Breaking down the breakdown of the EU’s green farming measures
