Meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) in the European Parliament have been dominated by a heated dispute over the shape of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2028–2034. The European Commission’s (EC) proposals, which include budget cuts and the elimination of the second pillar, have met with firm resistance from agricultural communities, politicians, and EU advisory bodies.
Crushing criticism from the EESC
The main flashpoint was a recent opinion by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) – an EU advisory body comprising employers, trade unionists, and farmers. The document entirely rejects the vision outlined by the EC. Joe Healy, the Committee’s rapporteur, explicitly accused the Commission of lacking any long-term direction and goal, which is a negative precedent compared to previous CAP reforms.
The Committee’s main concerns focus on two issues:
Threat to food security: The EESC warns of drastic cuts. A 20% nominal drop in the agricultural budget, given current inflation, could mean real cuts of up to 40%. Meanwhile, forecasts indicate that by 2050, global food demand will increase by 70%, while we are losing 12 million hectares of agricultural land globally every year.
Dismantling a proven system: The Committee strongly opposes the idea of eliminating the two-pillar CAP model and throwing all EU funds into a „common pot.” The report called this the „renationalization of agricultural policy” and a harbinger of a bureaucratic nightmare, demanding the protection of rural development funds against competition with infrastructure projects.
Fair distribution of subsidies
Who should receive EU support? The EESC makes it clear: the money must go exclusively to professionally active farmers who actually produce food, not to landowners who treat subsidies as passive income.
The Committee also demands:
Greater incentives for young farmers and women in rural areas.
Abandoning plans to discriminate against older farmers. Instead of the EC’s proposal to take away subsidies from farmers who have reached retirement age, the EESC calls for the creation of financial mechanisms to facilitate painless, intergenerational land transfers.
Three scenarios for European agriculture
The EESC document analyzes three possible future variants:
- No CAP: This would mean a collapse in exports, increased dependence on imports, and more expensive food. 250,000 people would lose their jobs. Paradoxically, this would also hit the climate – emissions in the EU would fall, but globally (due to the relocation of production) they would increase by 8 million tonnes of net CO2.
- A policy based solely on climate and the environment: This would lead to a decline in agricultural production, the loss of 90,000 jobs, and – similar to the first scenario – an increase in global emissions (by as much as 10 million tonnes of net CO2).
- A strong, well-funded CAP (EESC Recommendation): A model focusing on investment and productivity. This is the only variant that guarantees economic growth, increased exports, job retention, and a real, global drop in CO2 emissions (by 9 million net tonnes).
To achieve the third scenario, the EESC demands restoring the CAP budget to the level of 0.5% of the EU’s GDP (in 1993 it was 0.66%) and preserving the two-pillar model.
Parliament in unison: Cuts are unacceptable
The conclusions of the report sparked a lively reaction during the AGRI committee proceedings. MEPs were exceptionally unanimous that cutting the budget is absolutely unacceptable.
Budget protection: Barry Cowen (Ireland) suggested strictly blocking about 93 billion euros (from the NRRP pool and rural funds) exclusively for agricultural purposes.
Consequences for regions: Luke Flanagan (The Left) warned that the cuts would hit not only farmers but the entire local economy – from mechanics to hairdressers in rural areas.
Ecological requirements and trade: MEPs expressed fears about imposing new environmental requirements on farmers without providing adequate funding. They also emphasized the need to maintain the principle of reciprocity – food from third countries (e.g., from Mercosur countries) must meet the same production standards faced by European farmers.
Defense of the position by the EC
Representatives of the Directorate-General for Agriculture (DG AGRI) present at the meeting defended their plans. They rejected accusations of renationalization, pointing to the maintenance of common goals, indicators, and tools, including a binding target of allocating 43% of spending to the environment. The EC argues that the proposed amount of 293.7 billion euros is only a budget „minimum,” supplemented by a doubled crisis reserve and the ability to draw funds from other sources.
Final decisions on financing European agriculture for the next seven-year period may be made later this year. However, as the committee chair summarized when closing the session: EU decision-makers are facing extremely difficult negotiations that will only become harder over time.
