The European Parliament has approved a package of amendments to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) designed to reduce administrative burdens on farmers, loosen certain control and conditionality requirements, and give member states greater flexibility in implementing support during the current CAP period. While these changes apply only to the current CAP, some measures are likely to inform the design of the post‑2027 CAP, setting a potential precedent for future reforms.
The amendment was approved with 629 votes in favour, 17 against and 16 abstentions.
The legislation, presented by the Commission in May and fast-tracked through Parliament, was framed as a response to persistent complaints from farmers that CAP rules have become overly complex and detached from on-the-ground realities.
The adopted measures stop short of reopening the 2021 CAP reform, instead introducing mid-term adjustments to environmental conditionality, controls and sanctions, small-farm payments, and administrative reporting. Supporters cast the package as a pragmatic recalibration intended to restore proportionality and legal certainty, while critics warned that simplification risked drifting into deregulation without addressing structural weaknesses in EU agriculture.
You might be interested
No magic wand, no leviosa! Simplification not instant
Ahead of the debate on Monday evening, rapporteur André Rodrigues (S&D/PRT) repeatedly stressed the limits of the amendment. “It is not a magic wand that will resolve all problems in rural areas but it’s real,” he told the plenary, arguing that it would simplify rules that had become “incomprehensible, contradictory, and inoperable” for farmers and national administrations. The Parliament’s mandate, he said, was to simplify while preserving the social and environmental objectives agreed.
The final compromise, negotiated with the Council and backed by a broad majority in the Parliament’s agriculture committee (AGRI), raises simplified payments for small farmers to €3,000 per year, increases support for young farmers and farm business development to €75k, and limits on-the-spot checks and sanctions for farms. It also streamlines controls by introducing a single annual inspection per farm, based on a risk-aware framework.
Commission: responsiveness and speed over redesign
Agriculture Commissioner Christoph Hansen, who spoke next, also discussed the file against the backdrops of farmers’ concerns about bureaucracy, noting that the “reduction of administrative burden” was one of key demands that had been met.
“Farmers want to spend time working on their farms, not filling in reports after long days of work and then eventually making mistakes that are heavily fined,” the commissioner said. He emphasised flexibility, repeatedly insisting that “one size does not fit all in agriculture” and encouraged member states to make full use of the new simplification options in their CAP strategic plans. Hansen also defended the package against accusations of environmental backsliding, pointing to measures such as recognising organic farms as automatically compliant with environmental requirements.
Simplification or deregulation?
The plenary debate revealed broad support for easing administrative pressure on farmers, but also points of disagreement over where simplification ended and deregulation began. Several MEPs welcomed the package while others were critical that more effort hadn’t been taken to get it right from day one.
MEP Tomas Kubín (PfE/CZE), for example, charged that the original CAP setup had been “too complicated” and dissociated from European farmers’ reality, stressing that farmers should have been listened to in advance of system adoption. “We don’t listen enough to the people we are supposed to be helping,” he said. “Why do we adopt a complicated system and then we try to adjust it so it works?”
Others focused on benefits, what they saw as clear plusses for small and organic farms. MEP Thomas Waitz (Greens/AUT) highlighted that officially certified organic farms would now be “automatically recognised as complying with all environmental rules,” explaining the changes represented “a real added value for organic farmers and smaller businesses.” He welcomed the absence of cuts to environmental standards, fewer controls for farms under 30 hectares, and measures leading to fewer pesticides and tackling erosion. “This is a very sensible package,” he said in summary.
A little more critical
Not everyone shared his optimism or choice of words. MEP Sebastian Everding (The Left/DEU) countered that fewer checks were “not simplification” but in his view inherently dangerous. “The more helpless a living creature is, the more protected it should be from human cruelty,” he said, warning that reduced controls risked exacerbating recurring animal welfare scandals. “We focus on profit rather than animal welfare,” he said, calling instead for a “root and branch reform of the CAP” and not just a few tweaks, as well as a move away from intensive farming systems.
MEP Lukas Sieper (NI/DEU) questioned how far simplification could go “while keeping environmental protection,” warning that hard-won standards were being eroded.
A political signal, with limits
Altogether, the debate highlighted EU institutions’ willingness to prioritise speed, flexibility, and administrative relief in the face of farmer discontent, while also underscoring the provisional nature of the exercise.
While the amendments apply only to the current CAP period, some of the measures — such as risk-based inspections, higher small-farm payments, and automatic recognition of organic farms — are likely to inform the design of the post-2027 CAP. Officials and MEPs expect that successful simplifications could be carried over or adapted in future reforms, although nothing is guaranteed.
