Italy leads the front against the single fund for the CAP – European Newsroom

Report on EU Multiannual Budget Negotiations and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Agricultural and Cohesion Policy Alignment with the 2030 Agenda

A significant policy debate has emerged within the European Union concerning the financial architecture of the 2028-2034 multiannual budget. A European Commission proposal to integrate the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with cohesion funds into unified ‘national funds’ has met with considerable opposition from at least seven member states. This report analyzes the conflict, focusing on the profound implications for the EU’s commitment to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those related to poverty, hunger, economic growth, and environmental sustainability.

2.0 Core Concerns Regarding Food Security and Rural Livelihoods

The primary opposition, led by Italy and supported by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and Slovakia, centers on the potential impact on foundational SDGs related to agriculture and economic stability.

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Critics argue that altering the established funding mechanism of the CAP risks undermining its core function of ensuring food security and promoting sustainable agriculture across the Union. The “common” nature of the policy is seen as essential for a coordinated approach to this goal.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The proposed changes are perceived as a “renationalization of the CAP,” which could destabilize the economic viability of farms and rural communities. This threatens progress on ensuring decent work and sustained economic growth within the agricultural sector.

3.0 Regional Development and Inequality

The debate also highlights tensions between agricultural support and broader regional development objectives, directly impacting goals for equality and sustainable communities.

1. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The potential merger of funds raises concerns that the specific needs of the agricultural sector could be diluted, potentially exacerbating economic disparities between rural and urban areas, as well as among member states.
2. SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): In response to these concerns, the Commission has proposed a ‘rural target,’ mandating a minimum of 10% of funds for rural area measures. This initiative is a direct attempt to safeguard the vitality of rural communities and ensure they remain sustainable and inclusive.

4.0 Environmental Sustainability and Multilateral Partnership

The structure of the future budget will be critical for achieving the EU’s environmental targets and upholding the principles of international cooperation.

• SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): A fragmented, or “renationalized,” approach to agricultural policy could impede the Union’s ability to implement cohesive, large-scale strategies for climate mitigation and biodiversity protection, which are integral components of the modern CAP.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The disagreement among member states underscores a challenge to the multilateral partnership that forms the basis of the EU. The call from nations like France and Germany to maintain the ‘common’ policy framework reflects a desire to preserve this collaborative model for achieving shared objectives, including the SDGs.

5.0 Proposed Revisions and Future Outlook

The ongoing negotiations involve competing visions for the future of EU financing and its alignment with sustainability commitments.

Key Demands from Opposing Member States:

• A “profound revision” of the proposed financial architecture for the 2028-2034 period.
• Preservation of the distinct and ‘common’ nature of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Commission’s Compromise Proposals:

1. Introduction of a mandatory 10% ‘rural target’ for funds allocated to rural development.
2. Strengthening the legal independence of the CAP from other integrated programs.

The resolution of this budgetary conflict will significantly determine the effectiveness of the European Union’s strategy for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals over the next decade.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• The article’s central theme is the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a system of agricultural subsidies and programs. The debate over its funding structure directly impacts food production, the economic viability of farms, and rural development, which are all core components of SDG 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture). The discussion about allocating funds to rural areas further reinforces this connection.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The article describes a multi-country partnership (led by Italy, with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and Slovakia) working to influence EU-level policy. The entire debate revolves around the financial architecture and policy coherence of the EU’s multiannual budget, which is a clear example of regional partnership and the mechanisms for implementing common goals, as outlined in SDG 17.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Targets under SDG 2: Zero Hunger

1. Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers…
   • The debate over maintaining the ‘common’ nature of the CAP versus a ‘renationalization’ is fundamentally about ensuring stable and sufficient financial support for farmers across the EU. The seven opposing countries argue that the proposed changes could threaten the financial stability and, consequently, the incomes of their agricultural producers.
2. Target 2.a: Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services…
   • This target is directly addressed by Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal to include a ‘rural target’. The article specifies this as “a minimum quota of 10% of funds to be allocated to measures for rural areas,” which is a direct form of investment in rural development.

Targets under SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.
   • The article details a high-level political conflict over the best way to structure EU policy. The proposal to unify agricultural and cohesion funds is seen by several member states as a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the CAP. Their opposition and call for a “profound revision” of the financial architecture is an effort to ensure policy coherence for European agriculture.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

Indicators for SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• The article explicitly mentions a potential indicator for measuring progress towards Target 2.a. The proposal for a “minimum quota of 10% of funds to be allocated to measures for rural areas” serves as a clear, quantifiable metric. This aligns with the official indicator 2.a.1 (The agriculture orientation index for government expenditures), as it directly measures the proportion of a budget allocated to the agricultural and rural sector.

Indicators for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• While not a quantitative metric, the article implies an indicator for Target 17.14. The existence and functioning of the EU Agrifish Council, where ministers debate and coordinate policy, is itself an indicator of a mechanism to enhance policy coherence. The outcome of the debate—whether the CAP’s funding structure is changed or maintained—will be a measure of how this mechanism functions to achieve (or not achieve) policy coherence among member states.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: europeannewsroom.com