EU Budget : stop pretending “the CAP is secured” !

As the Irish Presidency, aiming to conclude the budget negotiations by the end of December, has circulated a proposed budget negotiating framework ahead of this weekend’s summit of Heads of State and Government, many underlined that the budget for the CAP is “untouched”. Farm Europe firmly denounces this reading which does not match the reality. In the proposal that is being discussed, agriculture is facing sharp cuts which are not reversed by the Irish presidency, on the opposite. While all Member States are calling for more risk management tools and crisis reserve the initial funds proposed by the Commission for agriculture in the EU facility are cut by 30%.

In its proposed negotiating box, Ireland is merely replicating the reduction in the CAP budget proposed by the European Commission, amounting to €293.7 billion in current euros (€261.013 billion in 2025 terms) for a CAP whose scope, as adjusted in the European Commission’s proposal, is retained.

Some President von der Leyen’s January 2026 ideas are proposed to be adopted, without any improvements, others are even in a less explicit form:

•⁠  ⁠The possibility of using two-thirds of the 25 per cent of national NRP allocations normally set aside as a reserve for CAP on the 1st day of the next budget. At European level, this amounts to some 45 billion euros in additional funding that Member States, if they so wish, could mobilise to top up their CAP allocations.

•⁠  ⁠Contrary to the position taken by the Commission President in January 2026, there is no explicit provision for Member States to finance agricultural measures under the Rural Development Fund. The scope of this rural fund, totaling at least €48.9 billion, is broader than that of the CAP’s rural development programme. Member States would therefore have the choice of using a minor or major portion or none of it to supplement CAP measures, without any guarantees for CAP beneficiaries.

•⁠  ⁠In both of the above cases, the Member States’ allocations of €48.9 billion and €45 billion are distributed in accordance with the rules governing the allocation of the single fund outside the CAP, rather than according to the CAP allocation key; there is no change from the proposals put forward by Ursula von der Leyen.

Failing to include, at the very least, the €45 billion anticipated from the use of the reserve in the CAP budget – and all or part of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development – is missed opportunity. This refusal fails to translate into concrete action the political rhetoric calling for greater European agricultural and food sovereignty and to provide farmers with a guarantee of clarity. This is not a matter of finding fresh money, but rather of exercising political responsibility and earmarking these funds for the CAP budget – in short, of moving from rhetoric to action.

Furthermore, the Irish Presidency is proposing to halve the allocations from the EU Facility on which the future European agricultural crisis fund depends, and neither the existence of the fund nor a specific allocation for managing agricultural crises is mentioned in Ireland’s document. At a time when crises are occurring one after another and all opinions converge on the fear that their frequency and scale will not diminish in the coming years, this omission is a cause for concern.

The already meagre share of the Competitiveness Fund proposed for agriculture, health, the bioeconomy and biotechnology has been cut as well by 13 per cent to less than 20 billion euros in total, whilst the investment challenges for the common good – whether in the digitalisation of agriculture, water management or infrastructure – are immense.

The practical aspects of the future CAP, Ireland is proposing to the Heads of State and Government to pre-empt, raise questions too.

The imperative to support the European Union’s agricultural sectors so that they become more competitive, the need to fully open up bioeconomy markets to EU agriculture, the imperative to better manage risks and crises, and to definitively link increased sustainability with production, appear to fall outside the Presidency’s remit.

No explanation is provided for the absence of a new eco-scheme financed 100 per cent by the CAP, whilst such an efficiency scheme supporting dual-performance agriculture is not an option for the future of efficient funding for agriculture across the 27 EU Member States.

The same applies to co-financing rules and the need to make it clear that Member States should be obliged to maintain at least their current level of contribution in euros.

And, whilst enlargement to include Ukraine has been a clear choice on the part of the EU, the fact that it reverses the competitiveness issue compared with past European enlargements is largely ignored by the Irish proposal, opening the door to agricultural restructuring that would be inevitable and poorly managed.