Same reports twice, repeated inspections and clashing deadlines. European farmers face a maze of more than 50,000 regulatory requirements across the bloc, a new EU-backed study finds. Poor coordination between national authorities only adds to the burden.
The research by the EU CAP Network examines how the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) functions with both national laws and all additional EU regulations. The researchers found numerous sets of regulations that have equivalent objectives but create additional burdens for farmers when multiple authorities request the same data or use separate systems.
The study analyzed 128 interviews along with 12 case studies in Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and Slovakia. It suggests that cutting red tape will depend on getting authorities to work together better rather than on changing the rules themselves.
Thousands of rules to navigate
The researchers identified over 50,000 requirements related to agricultural support programs, environmental protection, animal health and other agricultural activities. Italy had the highest number of requirements, Portugal, Spain and France were next on the list.
The researchers noted however, that the total number does not reflect how many requirements individual farmers face, which vary by country, farm type and participation in support schemes. Differences between countries largely stem from optional programmes rather than general statutory requirements.
The same data, submitted again and again
One of the clearest problems is the lack of coordination between public authorities. In some countries, farmers must submit similar information to different agencies, sometimes using separate online platforms.
In Slovakia, for example, livestock farmers may have to report animal movements and other records to several institutions, even when much of the information already exists in national databases. The study found that some animal movements, particularly exports, could involve up to 15 documents.
French wine growers stated they were required to report the same data on their vineyards for EU subsidies, national programs as well as certifications. They also reported cases of separate agencies inspecting the same vineyard within a short period of time, even if each was checking different but related information.
When deadlines clash
The study also revealed cases where farmers face different deadlines for related obligations. In Czechia, some pesticide reporting requirements involve a seven day deadline under national rules and a five day deadline under certain CAP provisions.
These discrepancies can lead to administrative errors and leave farmers at risk of fines for failing to meet the requirements.
In France, some deadlines fall during the busiest periods of the farming year, including planting season. More flexibility could help farmers meet their obligations without disrupting their work in the fields.
Conflicting classifications and records can also cause problems. In France, the same watercourse may be classified differently in agricultural and environmental systems. In Italy, mismatches between vineyard records and subsidy databases can delay or block applications for support.
Rules that pull in opposite directions
Despite these problems, the study found that agricultural and national regulations were generally consistent in their objectives. Rules on soil protection, plant health and animal health often support each other. The difficulties tend to appear when authorities apply and monitor them through separate procedures.
The report also highlights cases where legal requirements can pull farmers in different directions. For instance, emergency measures to tackle plant diseases may require farmers to use pesticides, while voluntary environmental protection schemes encourage them to cut back on the use of chemicals.
Cutting paperwork, not standards
The research team suggests a number of ways to ease the administrative burden, including letting farmers submit information just once, improving data sharing between authorities and coordinating inspections more effectively.
It also called for clear guidance and simpler online forms and procedures. These improvements may help significantly especially small farms, which often lack resources to handle complex rules or hire specialists to help them coply.
However, the study does not calculate how much time or money these measures could save. It also warns that poorly connected digital systems can create additional work instead of reducing it.
The research contributes to the broader discussion on how to make the Common Agriculture Policy more user friendly for farmers. Rather than calling for fewer general rules, it argues the authorities should focus on how they are implemented and enforced. For farmers, the real test is whether authorities can cut duplicate paperwork and make it easier to comply with the rules while still providing the support they need.
