Report on the European Commission’s Post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Proposal and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

The European Commission has released its legislative proposal for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period post-2027. This report analyzes the key components of the proposal, with a significant emphasis on its potential impact on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the proposal introduces measures aimed at fairer financial distribution, it raises substantial concerns regarding its alignment with environmental and climate-related SDGs due to increased flexibility for Member States and weakened environmental requirements.

Analysis of the Proposal’s Key Components and SDG Implications

Flexibility in Environmental Funding and its Impact on SDGs

The proposal grants Member States full flexibility to determine spending targets for environmental payments, removing dedicated funding streams. This approach poses a direct threat to several SDGs:

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Without mandated spending targets for agri-environmental and climate actions, incentives for farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices are likely to diminish. This could undermine the EU’s climate mitigation and adaptation efforts within the agricultural sector.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): The lack of financial incentives for voluntary environmental measures risks deprioritizing the protection of biodiversity, soil health, and natural habitats. This could accelerate the degradation of ecosystems that agriculture depends upon.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The policy risks channeling funds towards intensive, exploitative farming systems over sustainable food production models, contradicting the goal of achieving sustainable production patterns.

Performance Framework and Accountability in Relation to SDG Targets

The proposal’s increased flexibility is not counterbalanced by a robust accountability system. The absence of precise targets or meaningful performance indicators for environmental outcomes creates a significant accountability gap. This directly impacts the ability to monitor progress towards key environmental goals.

• The lack of clear metrics makes it difficult to assess the CAP’s contribution to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), particularly in managing agricultural run-off, and SDG 15 (Life on Land), in preventing the loss of pollinators and biodiversity.
• Without strong performance indicators, Member States may face less pressure to implement and enforce environmental legislation within the farming sector, potentially leading to the disappearance of remaining landscape features like hedges and wild trees.

Financial Redistribution and its Contribution to SDG 2 and SDG 10

A notable positive element of the proposal is the capping of hectare-based income support. This measure is designed to redirect funds from large agricultural holdings to smaller farms and those who need it most, such as young farmers. This aligns with the following SDGs:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): By supporting smaller farms and new entrants, the policy aims to diversify the agricultural sector, making it more resilient and better equipped to ensure long-term food security.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The capping and degressivity of payments represent a move towards a more equitable distribution of public funds within the agricultural community.

Conditionalities and Implications for Environmental Stewardship

The proposal introduces a new ‘farmer stewardship system’ which significantly reduces mandatory environmental obligations for farmers. This shift from obligations to incentives, without guaranteeing the latter, places a heavy burden on Member States to design effective protection systems for their natural resources. This has critical implications for:

• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): The protection of water bodies from agricultural pollution becomes highly dependent on the voluntary actions and national policies of Member States.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): The prevention of soil degradation and the protection of pollinators are no longer underpinned by strong, common baseline requirements, risking further biodiversity loss.

Conclusion and Forward Outlook

The post-2027 CAP proposal presents a paradox. It advances equity in line with SDG 10 but risks regressing on environmental and climate commitments central to SDGs 6, 12, 13, and 15. The high degree of flexibility granted to Member States, without corresponding accountability mechanisms, could undermine the transition to a sustainable food system. The success of the future CAP in contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will depend heavily on the upcoming legislative process.

Next Steps

1. The proposal will be subject to discussion and negotiation among the Member States over the next year.
2. The European Parliament must provide its approval for the proposal to be adopted.
3. Decision-makers are urged to consider the long-term impacts on climate resilience and ecosystem health, ensuring the final policy prioritizes the collective good and aligns with the EU’s commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article focuses on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which directly governs food production and farming. It discusses “sustainable food practices,” the resilience of the farming sector, and support for farmers, all of which are central to achieving sustainable agriculture as outlined in SDG 2.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The text explicitly mentions the “climate crisis” and criticizes the CAP proposal for undermining “climate actions.” It highlights the need for policies that address the impact of agriculture on the climate, linking directly to this goal.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The article expresses strong concerns about the “biodiversity crisis,” the potential “loss of pollinators,” the disappearance of “wild trees and hedges,” and the spread of “sterile soils.” These issues are at the core of SDG 15, which aims to protect terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The concluding quote from Giulia Riedo mentions the lack of a “real plan to protect our waters from agricultural run-off.” This directly connects the CAP’s environmental standards to the goal of improving water quality by reducing pollution.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The proposal’s effort to make the distribution of CAP funds “fairer” by capping support for large farms and redirecting funds to “farmers who need it most, such as young farmers” addresses inequalities within the agricultural sector.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article contrasts “sustainable food practices” with “exploitative farming systems” and “damaging food production systems.” This aligns with SDG 12’s objective of promoting sustainable production patterns and the efficient use of natural resources.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The critique of the CAP proposal centers on governance issues, such as granting “full flexibility” to Member States without a “stronger accountability system” or “clearer guidance.” This relates to the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices. The article’s entire focus is on fostering “sustainable food practices” and making the sector “more resilient,” especially in the face of “floods and droughts.”

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article criticizes the CAP proposal for weakening “agri-environmental and climate actions,” which are a key mechanism for integrating climate measures into agricultural policy.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil… The concern about the “spread of sterile soils” directly relates to this target of restoring degraded land and soil.
  • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity… The article’s warnings about the disappearance of “wild trees and hedges” and the “loss of pollinators” align with this target to protect habitats and biodiversity.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution… The statement about the lack of a plan to “protect our waters from agricultural run-off” directly addresses the need to reduce water pollution from agricultural sources.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The proposal to “cap hectare-based income support” and redirect funds is a fiscal policy change aimed at creating a “fairer” distribution of subsidies within the EU.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The article’s call to move away from “damaging food production systems” and protect “natural resources” is central to this target.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article criticizes the lack of a “stronger accountability system” and “no real accountability” in the new CAP proposal, highlighting a failure to meet this target.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article explicitly states that a key weakness of the proposal is that “there are no precise targets or performance indicators for meaningful environmental requirements.” However, it implies several indicators by highlighting what is missing or needs to be measured:

• Spending on environmental measures: The article criticizes the lack of “dedicated funding” and “spending targets for environmental payments.” This implies that an indicator would be the proportion of the CAP budget allocated to agri-environmental and climate actions.
• Distribution of financial support: The proposal to cap support for large farms and redirect funds suggests an indicator related to the fairness of distribution, such as the percentage of CAP funds received by small and medium-sized farms versus large farms.
• Land and soil health: The concern over “sterile soils” implies the need for indicators measuring soil organic matter or other metrics of soil quality on agricultural land.
• Biodiversity on farmland: The fear that “wild trees and hedges still standing in the fields are likely to disappear” and the “loss of pollinators” points to the need for indicators such as the area of landscape features on agricultural land and trends in pollinator populations.
• Water quality: The reference to “agricultural run-off” implies the use of indicators like the concentration of nitrates or pesticides in water bodies adjacent to farmland.
• Accountability framework: The critique of “no real accountability” implies the need for an indicator measuring the existence and implementation of a performance, monitoring, and reporting framework for Member States’ CAP strategic plans.

SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: eubusiness.com