EU governments are demanding more flexibility over how they spend billions of euros in farm support after 2027. It puts them at odds with Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen.
Mr Hansen warned that too much national choice could undermine the concept of a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The issue arose during a critical round of talks in the Agriculture Council last week. Ministers hope to secure a joint Council position by October. However, they remain divided over who should receive farm subsidies, whether payments to larger farms should be capped and how much freedom national governments should have to design their own support schemes.
I heard the word voluntary, voluntary, voluntary. And if we go for voluntary, where remains the commonality of this policy? — Christophe Hansen, European commissioner for agriculture and food
Mr Hansen had previously cautioned against subjecting CAP to a “pick and choose” policy approach. He cited the importance of maintaining common standards in order to maintain fair competition among farmers and protect the single European market.
Who gets the money?
At the centre of the dispute is a simple but politically difficult question: who should receive EU agricultural subsidies? While the commissioner believes that the next CAP should favor those actively engaged in farming and phase out significant amounts of money paid primarily based on land ownership, other member states are concerned about the potential for such reforms to create inequality.
Mr Hansen called for a stronger definition of who an ‘active farmer’ is that could exclude, for example, investors living abroad. He also supports EU level rules aiming to reduce payments to the largest beneficiaries gradually, and eventually cap the amount they can receive.
The commisisoner has indicated that is open to negotiating higher levels before these reductions take effect. He also insists that some form of common rule at the European level must remain. In his view, if no common rules exist, then farmers in various EU member states will begin operating under increasingly disparate systems of support. Therefore, many national governments believe that farm support must be better focused but differ significantly on whether Brussels should dictate the manner in which this occurs.
Flexibility in demand
EU capitals’ demands differ. Germany advocates against requiring mandatory capping, seeking increased flexibility instead. Similarly, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Estonia, and Czechia advocate for allowing member states to have more discretion over how support reductions occur.
The primary concern is that European agriculture varies greatly from one member state to another. A payment system which is effective in supporting countries comprised predominantly of small family farms may produce results entirely different from countries dominated by large commercial farms, in terms of both total food production and jobs creation.
Slovakia provided perhaps the most forceful warning. Its representative stated that if the proposed reduction cap rules were implemented upon its current agricultural system support would likely decline by approximately two thirds, from €2.8bn to €1bn. The Slovak government claimed that large commercial productive farms employing employees and investing in agriculture would be disproportionately affected by these reductions.
Climate threats
Meanwhile, Belgium supported mandating both payment reductions and caps. Yet it advocated for retaining flexibility at the national and regional levels on how each respective member state applies the mandated rules.
The struggle for subsidy allocations is intensifying as European farmers are facing increasing costs associated with extreme weather events. Mr Hansen evoked last year’s extreme weather-related damages. He cited them as evidence that the European Union needs to increase investments in resilience, water conservation, soil protection, and modernisation. Additionally, the comissioner questioned whether existing crisis funding mechanisms are sufficient.
Currently, the agricultural reserve provides €450m annually. Mr Hansen claims it is “not up to the challenge” of compensating for the damage farmers have suffered. Several member states argue for establishing stronger insurance and risk management systems. Spain argued for a European reinsurance system, while Italy advocated for stronger EU-wide protections against large scale droughts, floods, and frosts.
Younger farmers
Despite ongoing disagreements among member states over the CAP reform process, all parties appear to agree that the next CAP must make a greater effort to draw young individuals into agriculture. Mr Hansen referred to this as providing new entrants with a well-funded package. He described continuing with current levels of support as “not an option”. But even here, governments disagree about how Brussels should intervene.
The Netherlands supports allocating six per cent of CAP funds toward young farmers but wishes to retain more autonomy over how it distributes these funds. The argument reflects the wider battle running through the negotiations. Governments broadly agree on the objectives but often want national control over how to achieve them.
With less than three months remaining until a decision is reached on the (post-2027) CAP reform, time is rapidly running out for reaching consensus. Ireland wishes that agriculture ministers reach a preliminary general approach during their meeting scheduled for 26-27 October. Prior to that, the presidency intends to present a revised negotiating document on the next EU long-term budget ahead of the European Council meeting on 15-16 October. EU leaders aim for an agreement on the wider budget before the end of the year.
The timing squeeze
Additionally, numerous member states have requested transitional provisions, fearing that the new system may not be fully operational by the start date of the next CAP period in 2028. Agriculture ministers must now find a balance. They want more flexibility for national farming systems without weakening common EU rules or fair competition.
Mr Hansen’s message to member states was clear. The CAP can become more flexible, but it must remain a common European policy rather than turning into 27 different national systems.
