Brussels, 10 September 2025 – In a vote today, the European Parliament shared its vision for the future of EU agricultural policy – the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – signalling a willingness to push for further deregulation and continue support for a deeply unfair payment system that does not contribute positively to improving farm resilience in the face of the triple climate, nature and pollution crisis.  

While the report does not hold legislative weight, the European Environmental Bureau (the EEB) – the largest network of environmental NGOs in Europe – is concerned over the readiness of the Parliament to maintain an unfair system of subsidies centred around direct income support and to allow the continued erosion of environmental safeguards.  

Furthermore, while the Parliament fell short of asking for a significant budget to be ring-fenced for the climate and the environment, it did recognise the need for substantial funding dedicated to environmental incentive measures and the need for a level playing field regarding environmental conditionality. Two aspects that the European Commission CAP proposal fails to address.  

Théo Paquet, Senior Policy Officer for Agriculture at the EEB, said: 

“As representatives of the people, the European Parliament should protect against the dangers of deregulation and a profoundly unfair payment system. By failing to call for a strong dedicated budget to support farmers in their transition to more sustainable and resilient systems, they have failed to protect our agri-food system from the very real threats posed by the nature, pollution, and climate crisis.”

The EEB is most concerned about:  

• The Parliament’s continued support for direct area-based payments, an unfair system which has resulted in 80% of CAP funds going to just 20% of farms (the largest ones) rather than to farmers who need it most, as agreed by the consensus report concluding the 2024 ‘Strategic Dialogue of the Future of EU Agriculture’. This is in stark contrast to the Commission’s proposal to cap and gradually reduce area-based income support, which while only a first step, goes in the right direction.  

• The Parliament‘s failure to call for ring-fenced funding to support with the green transition, despite recognition of the impacts of the climate crisis on the sector from both the Parliament and the Commission. Without dedicated funding, the few remaining environmental measures in the CAP are nothing more than empty promises.  

• The failure to support the extensification of the livestock sector, which would deliver multiple benefits, including reduced pollution and higher animal welfare standards, or measures to support reduction in the overall number of farmed animals, as current numbers are overstepping planetary boundaries and making the EU heavily reliant on imports of proteins. Again, this contrasts with the Commission’s proposal, which does put forward several positive tools. Although, unfortunately, without dedicated funding these tools will have limited impact.  

The EEB agrees with:  

• The Parliament’s call for an impact assessment on the mandatory capping and gradual reduction in area-based income support for farmers. In addition, the EEB calls for a general need for assessments of environmental impacts. Both are missing from the Commission’s proposal.  

• While the report has a general focus on deregulation, the deletion of the amendments on rolling back Natura 2000 designations and reversing national “gold-plating” helps safeguard core EU nature protection rules, preventing a weakening of the Habitats Directive and ensuring that CAP simplification does not come at the expense of biodiversity commitments. 

Notes for editors  

• The EEB’s reaction following the publication of the European Commission’s proposal in July. 

• The EEB’s reaction to the Strategic Dialogue consensus report in September 2024.