Report on the Proposed 2025 Reform of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

1.0 Introduction: Climate Crisis and Policy Response

Against a backdrop of severe climate-related events across Europe in the summer of 2025, including floods, droughts, and wildfires, the European Commission has proposed a significant overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These weather events underscore the urgent need for climate resilience in agriculture, directly impacting the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) and Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action). The proposed reform aims to address these challenges but has generated considerable debate regarding its potential impact on the EU’s broader sustainability commitments.

2.0 Overview of the Proposed CAP Reform

The European Commission’s proposal intends to make the CAP more climate-resilient and market-oriented. However, it has drawn criticism from both agricultural and environmental stakeholders. The central conflict revolves around balancing the economic viability of farming, crucial for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), with the environmental safeguards necessary to meet SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). The reform’s key changes will dictate the trajectory of Europe’s food systems and its ability to meet its sustainable development targets for the next decade.

• Stated Objective: Increase climate resilience and market orientation.
• Primary Concern: The reform may weaken environmental ambitions in favour of administrative flexibility for farmers and member states.
• Impacted Sector: European agriculture, which accounts for approximately 10% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions and faces escalating economic costs from climate change.

3.0 Analysis of Key Concerns in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Several aspects of the proposed reform have raised concerns that it may undermine progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

3.1 Budgetary Reductions and Allocation

A primary issue is the significant reduction in the CAP budget, which could be as high as 30% when adjusted for inflation. This directly threatens the resources available for sustainable agricultural transitions.

• No Dedicated Environmental Funding: The proposal removes a dedicated budget line for climate and environmental initiatives. This forces crucial actions for SDG 13 and SDG 15 to compete with other priorities within a reduced budget.
• Weakened Conditionality: The previous system linking direct payments to environmental standards has been replaced by a farm stewardship scheme with minimal conditionality, representing a less ambitious approach to promoting sustainable practices under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

3.2 Devolution of Authority to Member States

The reform proposes folding farm funding into a larger fund, granting member states significant discretion over its allocation. This shift raises concerns about the consistent application of EU-wide sustainability standards.

• Lack of Environmental Incentives: Critics note that the new structure provides few incentives for member states to prioritise spending on environmental or climate objectives, potentially hindering progress on SDG 13 and SDG 15.
• Risk to the ‘Common’ Policy: This “renationalisation” could create a fragmented system, undermining the cooperative framework of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). It risks a “race to the bottom” on environmental standards as nations compete, potentially distorting the single market.

3.3 Reintroduction of Coupled Income Support

The proposal reintroduces mandatory coupled income support, tying payments to the production of specific agricultural products, often in struggling sectors like livestock.

• Perpetuating Unsustainable Models: Experts warn this policy could lock farmers into unsustainable farming models, such as an intensified livestock sector, which runs counter to the objectives of SDG 12 and SDG 13 due to high emissions and resource use.
• Economic Inefficiency: This type of subsidy is viewed by some as an economically inefficient mechanism that hinders market-driven transitions to more sustainable practices.

4.0 Conclusion and Outlook

The proposed CAP reform is at a critical juncture. Negotiations will determine whether the final policy can successfully balance the immediate economic needs of farmers with the long-term imperative of environmental sustainability. The outcome will have profound implications for the European Union’s ability to achieve its commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those related to food security (SDG 2), climate action (SDG 13), and biodiversity (SDG 15). The challenge for lawmakers is to forge a compromise that builds a resilient and sustainable agricultural system for the future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article directly addresses food production and agricultural policy. It discusses the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as a guarantor of a “steady supply of quality food for Europeans” and focuses on the future of farming in Europe. The challenges of climate change, such as floods and droughts destroying harvests, directly threaten food security, linking the article’s core theme to this goal.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  This is a central theme of the article. It opens by describing extreme weather events like “floods…droughts…and wildfires” as consequences of climate change affecting farmers. The article states that “Agriculture accounts for around 10% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions” and that the proposed CAP reform is pitched as a bid to make the policy “more climate-resilient.” The entire debate revolves around balancing agricultural production with climate and environmental pledges.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The article highlights the environmental dimension of the CAP, which is billed as a guarantor of “greener fields, thriving villages and postcard-ready rural landscapes.” Concerns are raised that the reform risks “watering down environmental ambition” and weakening environmental safeguards. The criticism of supporting a “bloated livestock sector” and the mention of Birdlife Europe also connect the discussion to biodiversity and sustainable land use.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article discusses the governance and policy structure of the CAP. The proposed reform, which gives “member states considerable discretion over how [funding] is allocated,” raises concerns about policy coherence. Critics warn this could lead to a “patchwork of national agendas with little co-ordination” and a “race to the bottom for environmental action,” which directly relates to the goal of ensuring coherent and effective policies for sustainable development.

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

1. Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.

   The article’s focus on making European agriculture “more climate-resilient” in the face of floods, droughts, and wildfires directly aligns with this target. The discussion about the CAP’s role in determining “how Europe farms” and protecting its environment is central to implementing resilient and sustainable agricultural practices.

2. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

   The opening paragraph details how farmers are victims of climate-related disasters, with floods in Lithuania and droughts in Spain. The article states that the European Investment Bank estimates “adverse weather currently costs the sector up to €28 billion annually.” The entire debate around the CAP reform is framed by the need to strengthen farmers against these climate shocks.

3. Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.

   The mention of droughts that “parched fields across southern Spain” and floods that “swept away harvests in Lithuania” directly relates to land degradation caused by extreme weather. The CAP’s role in preserving landscapes and protecting the environment is crucial for achieving this target.

4. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

   The concern that the CAP reform could lead to a “complete renationalisation” of agricultural policy, creating a “patchwork of national agendas with little co-ordination,” directly addresses the issue of policy coherence. Critics fear this change undermines a common European approach, making it harder to “track progress, compare results and maintain a level playing field,” which is the essence of this target.

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

• Economic Losses from Climate Disasters: The article explicitly states that “adverse weather currently costs the sector up to €28 billion annually, with climate damage to crops predicted to surge up to two-thirds by 2050.” This financial figure serves as a direct indicator for measuring resilience and the economic impact of climate-related hazards (relevant to Target 13.1).
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture: The article mentions that “Agriculture accounts for around 10% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.” Tracking this percentage over time would be a key indicator of the sector’s progress in climate change mitigation (relevant to SDG 13).
• Funding for Environmental Action: The article implies that the allocation of funds is a critical indicator of environmental commitment. The fact that the reform “includes no dedicated budget line for climate and environment initiatives” and involves “cutting dedicated green funding” is presented as a measure of weakened environmental ambition (relevant to SDG 13 and 15).
• Policy Coherence and Harmonization: The potential for a “patchwork of national agendas” versus a common European policy is a key theme. The degree of harmonization in national plans designed by member states could serve as an indicator for measuring policy coherence for sustainable development (relevant to Target 17.14).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theparliamentmagazine.eu