Report on the European Parliament’s Position on the Proposed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Revision

Introduction

The European Parliament has formally rejected the European Commission’s proposal for a comprehensive revision of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) intended for the 2028-2034 period. Through a non-binding resolution, the Parliament signaled its intent to limit the scope of the reform, preserving the fundamental structure of the existing farm funding system. This decision creates a significant divergence between the EU’s legislative bodies on the future of agriculture, with profound implications for the bloc’s ability to meet its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Key Areas of Contention and SDG Implications

Financial Framework and Regional Equality

A central point of disagreement is the proposed integration of CAP funds with the Cohesion Policy. The Commission’s plan aimed to merge resources to amplify their impact on reducing socio-economic disparities, directly addressing SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). However, the Parliament has requested that CAP funds remain entirely separate, prioritizing dedicated agricultural support over a blended regional development approach.

Direct Payments, Food Security, and Economic Viability

The Commission’s proposal sought to enhance fairness and support smaller operations, in line with SDG 10, by implementing:

1. A maximum cap of €100,000 in direct payments per farm.
2. Increased funding for innovative farms, young farmers, and those in challenging regions.

The Parliament rejected this, calling for the current direct payment system to be maintained. This position is framed as essential for ensuring farmer income and stability, which underpins SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by safeguarding food security and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by protecting the economic backbone of rural communities.

Generational Renewal and Social Sustainability

The debate acknowledges the critical demographic challenge in European agriculture, where 58% of farmers are over 55. While the Commission proposed directing more funds to young farmers, the Parliament has advocated for improving tax and loan systems to enhance access for new entrants. Both approaches aim to secure the long-term viability of the agricultural sector, a key component of social sustainability and a prerequisite for achieving SDG 2 and SDG 8 in the future.

Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action: A Divergence in Approach

Implementation of Green Practices

A significant point of contention relates to environmental conditionalities. The Parliament stated that farmers should be encouraged, rather than forced, to adopt advanced, environmentally friendly practices. This stance has drawn criticism from observers who argue it maintains a status quo that is inadequate to address the climate crisis, potentially undermining progress toward:

• SDG 13 (Climate Action)
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)
• SDG 15 (Life on Land)

Focus on Technological and Innovative Solutions

The Parliament emphasized that the focus for environmental progress should be on the voluntary adoption of technology and innovation. This aligns with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). Key areas highlighted for encouragement include:

• Digital technologies
• Advanced water management systems
• Establishment of circular economy models

This approach prioritizes technological solutions as the driver for sustainability, aligning with SDG 12 through improved resource efficiency.

Procedural Status and Next Steps

Summary of Institutional Positions

• European Parliament: Rejects the proposed reform, advocating for the preservation of the current CAP structure, increased funding, and simplified bureaucracy.
• European Commission: Proposed a comprehensive revision aimed at integrating agricultural policy with broader EU goals for environmental sustainability and regional equality.
• Council of the European Union: Supports the Commission’s proposal and has already negotiated measures to strengthen its simplification aspects.

Outlook

Following the Parliament’s resolution, the European Commission is expected to initiate a new round of negotiations. With the current CAP in place until 2027, there is a window for the institutions to find a compromise. The final outcome will be decisive in shaping whether the EU’s largest budget component acts as a catalyst or a barrier to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article on the European Parliament’s rejection of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) revision touches upon several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis reveals connections to the following goals:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The core of the article revolves around agricultural policy, farm funding, and food security. The CAP’s primary function is to support farming, which is fundamental to food production. The debate over direct payments to farmers and ensuring their income directly relates to maintaining a stable and secure food supply. An MEP is quoted emphasizing the need to “ensure food security.”
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article highlights the “generational issue” in European agriculture, noting that “58 per cent of European farmers are above 55.” The proposed reforms and the parliament’s requests aim to improve access to funds and support for “younger farmers,” which is crucial for the long-term economic viability and sustainability of the agricultural sector as a source of employment.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The European Commission’s proposal aimed to reduce “socio-economic disparities among member states and regions” by combining CAP funds with Cohesion Policy funding. Furthermore, the proposal to limit direct payments based on farm size and direct more funds to farms in “challenging regions” is a direct attempt to address inequalities within the agricultural sector.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article mentions the parliament’s position on encouraging farmers to adopt practices like “advanced water management systems and the establishment of circular economy models.” These practices are central to achieving sustainable management of natural resources and promoting sustainable production patterns.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The debate is set against the backdrop of “climate change and growing challenges for the sector.” The article notes that the parliament’s position is to encourage, rather than force, the adoption of “advanced, environmentally friendly practices,” which are necessary for climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture.

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

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 2.3 (under SDG 2): “By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers…” The article’s focus on “direct payments to farmers” as the “backbone of their income” directly relates to this target. The debate over the structure of these payments is a debate about how best to support farmer incomes.
2. Target 2.4 (under SDG 2): “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices…” The mention of encouraging “advanced, environmentally friendly practices,” “advanced water management systems,” and addressing the challenges of “climate change” aligns with the goal of making agriculture more sustainable and resilient.
3. Target 8.2 (under SDG 8): “Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation…” The parliament’s focus on the “adoption of digital technologies” and the commission’s proposal to direct funds to “innovative farms” connect directly to this target.
4. Target 10.4 (under SDG 10): “Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.” The CAP itself is a major social protection policy for the agricultural sector. The commission’s proposal to limit payments (“a maximum allowance of €100,000 per farmer”) and integrate CAP with Cohesion Policy funds to reduce “socio-economic disparities” is a clear example of policy adoption aimed at greater equality.
5. Target 12.2 (under SDG 12): “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” The call to encourage “advanced water management systems and the establishment of circular economy models” directly supports this target by promoting more efficient use of natural resources in agriculture.

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

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Financial Support for Farmers: The proposed cap of “€100,000 per farmer” is a specific, measurable financial indicator related to Target 2.3. The overall amount and distribution of CAP funds serve as a primary indicator of income support for farmers.
• Demographics of Farmers: The article provides precise statistics that can be used as indicators for Target 8.2 and the broader goal of generational renewal. It states that “58 per cent of European farmers are above 55, while only nine per cent of farmers under 40 receive CAP support.” Tracking the percentage of young farmers receiving support and the age distribution of farmers over time would measure progress.
• Adoption of Sustainable Practices: While not quantified, the article implies that the rate of “adoption of digital technologies, advanced water management systems and the establishment of circular economy models” is a key measure of success. This could be tracked through surveys and administrative data to measure progress towards Targets 2.4 and 12.2.
• Bureaucratic Burden: The call for “simplified bureaucracy and easier access to CAP funds” implies that indicators such as the time and cost for farmers to apply for and receive funds could be used to measure the simplification of policies.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: oliveoiltimes.com