Europe’s farmers could face a major overhaul of how they receive public money after 2028. EU agriculture ministers clashed this week over a proposed cap on farm payments that would limit support to larger producers, with some countries warning it could threaten food production and rural jobs. The dispute lays bare a deeper question: who should EU farm subsidies actually serve?
The future of farm income support ties into a wider debate over the EU’s next long-term budget. A new scheme known as digressive area-based income support (DABIS) would see larger farms receive proportionally less under the post-2028 CAP. The Cyprus presidency said the goal was to provide input into budget negotiations, targeting public money more effectively while keeping the farm sector economically viable.
The European Commission defended the measures as a fairer and more accurately targeted way to support farmers. Commissioner for Agriculture Christophe Hansen argued that common EU rules would prevent unfair competition between member states. It was hard to justify, he said, one farmer facing payment caps while a similar producer across the border received hundreds of thousands of euros more.
Flexibility over uniformity
The scheme would vary according to the income needs of individual farms and include additional support for young farmers. Most countries supported the principle of better targeting‚ but wanted to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach․ Spain approved the general plan but suggested directing income support at professionals and smaller farms, highlighting the need to define who counts as an active farmer.
Germany also accepted the more targeted approach‚ but warned that the €100‚000 cap would affect some farms‚ particularly in eastern Germany‚ where farms tend to be larger․ Italy was more forceful, insisting the EU should not adopt rules that would harm large farms which provide both food and employment. Rome proposed voluntary digressivity and national differentiation instead.
You might be interested
Food security concerns
Other member states warned that capping larger farms would jeopardise Europe’s food security․ Czechia said it was too strict and should be left to member states and that large farms also play a meaningful role in food production and rural employment․
Romania rejected mandatory capping, arguing it could weaken competitiveness while creating problems with land ownership, investment, and the solvency of viable farms. Greece’s minister for agriculture and food, Margaritis Schinas, framed income support as more than monetary aid. “Food security can no longer be taken for granted,” he said, calling it “a tool for strategic autonomy for the European Union.”
Fairness vs viability
The meeting laid bare a fundamental question for the next CAP reform: how to make farm support more equitable without harming productive farms. “We therefore proposed to steer public support towards those that have a bigger need to remain viable,” Hansen said. Countries with small, fragmented landholdings favour redistribution. Those with larger farms fear stricter targets will hurt innovative producers and threaten food security.
We therefore proposed to steer public support towards those that have a bigger need to remain viable.
— Christophe Hansen, Commissioner for Agriculture and Food
The Netherlands expressed support for the introduction of ceilings and digressivity, which they believed could balance out the payments system. Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Slovakia, and others supported voluntary measures instead. The Commission insisted that savings made through capping should remain within the national CAP envelopes and could be invested in modernisation and environmental services․
While ministers broadly agreed on the need for a more equitable farm policy, they remained divided on how much Brussels should prescribe. DABIS’s future will depend on the EU’s next multiannual budget negotiations. And until member states agree on who farming subsidies are actually for, the divisions on show this week are unlikely to go away.
