Common Agricultural Policy - Performance

Programme in a nutshell

Concrete examples of achievements^(*)

Budget for 2021-2027

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_01:pie[/notranslate]

Rationale and design of the programme

The EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) is a partnership between agriculture and society, and between Europe and its farmers. It aims to:

• support farmers and improve agricultural productivity, ensuring a stable supply of affordable food;
• safeguard European Union farmers to make a reasonable living;
• help tackle climate change and the sustainable management of natural resources;
• maintain rural areas and landscapes across the EU;
• keep the rural economy alive by promoting jobs in farming, agri-food industries and associated sectors.

The CAP is a common policy for all EU countries. It is  under shared management and funded at European level from the resources of the EU’s budget.

Budget

Budget programming (million EUR):

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_02:table[/notranslate]

Financial programming:
- EUR 794.0 million (- 0%)
compared to the legal basis*

^{* Top-ups pursuant to Art. 5 of the multiannual financial framework regulation are excluded from financial programming in this comparison.}

The financial programming is set in regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027.

Regulation (EU) 2020/2220 ensured the continuity in granting income support to farmers and in supporting rural development measures in 2021 and 2022.

Transfers between funds are possible according to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, Article 103.

Budget performance – implementation

Cumulative implementation rate at the end of 2023 (million EUR):

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_03:table[/notranslate]

Voted budget implementation (million EUR) ⁽¹⁾:

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_04:table[/notranslate]

Contribution to horizontal priorities

Green budgeting

Contribution to green budgeting priorities (million EUR):

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_05:table[/notranslate]

Agriculture is not part of the taxonomy and thus most of the activities funded by the CAP are not covered by it. Taxonomy criteria have been developed only for some activities that are eligible for support under the CAP, namely forestry measures and certain measures related to environmental protection and restoration are relevant.

As mentioned in the official Commission replies to the special report of the European Court of Auditors on sustainable finance, there is a fundamental difference between the EU taxonomy criteria only focusing on activities performing above the substantial contribution criteria and other EU policies. The CAP covers a broader eligibility spectrum for financial support, with a level of ambition that is not necessarily lower than that of the taxonomy. Hence, this diversity is reflected in the climate tracking of expenditure. The EU climate coefficients, which are used to measure climate expenditure in the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and NextGenerationEU, are aligned to the maximum extent possible with the technical screening criteria under the EU taxonomy’s first delegated act, which lacks criteria for agriculture. The EU climate coefficients and climate tracking methodology for the EU budget also recognise efforts and investments that are not covered by the taxonomy or not entirely in line with it, if they nevertheless produce a beneficial climate effect or are relevant for the green transition.

The rules set out in EU legislation cover the funding programmes to be appropriate for addressing the policy objectives, and the EU taxonomy criteria were initially developed for private financing. The roles of public and private finance differ. The CAP has treaty objectives to fulfil, such as ensuring food security and ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community.

Finally, there are also technical and practical obstacles to the reporting of CAP expenditure on the basis of the taxonomy criteria:

• CAP is a shared management programme and the detailed information needed to assess the compliance with the EU taxonomy criteria is neither available nor required to be delivered by the Member States; Member States are in charge of selecting the detailed eligible investments within the interventions in their CAP strategic plan;
• the assessment at the policy level (CAP strategic plan regulation) is not possible either, as there is not enough granularity in the conditions of the different types of interventions.

Climate

EU greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have fallen by more than 20% since 1990 and have stagnated since 2010, while agricultural production has continued to grow. Although this shows progress in terms of climate footprint per unit of output, there is a need to reduce total emissions further to achieve the EU’s ambitious climate targets for 2030. Based on the EU climate tracking methodology, the CAP contribution to climate action is estimated at 26% for the 2014-2020 period (EUR 103 198 million), which is above the 25% commitments: EUR 45 504 million for EAGF (15%) and EUR 57 694 million for EAFRD (58%). Because of its nature, the CAP has better addressed the reduction of emissions for managed agricultural soils, thanks to increased carbon sequestration and protection of carbon stocks, than for livestock. The good agricultural and environmental conditions and greening measures play a major role in protecting permanent grasslands and the EU soil carbon stock. Good agricultural and environmental conditions include obligations to keep a minimum soil cover, maintenance of soil organic matter through appropriate practices, including banning the burning of arable stubbles, and appropriate land management. These measures also significantly contribute to improving the adaptation of soils to changing climatic conditions. Greening practices cover crop diversification, maintenance of permanent grasslands and the establishment of ecological focus areas on 5% of arable land. A number of measures have significant effects on adaptation and mitigation.

According to the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation, over the 2021-2027 period (from 2023 onwards), actions under the CAP are expected to contribute 40% of the overall financial envelope of the CAP, at the EU level, to climate-related objectives. Using information provided by Member States, the Commission will account for the CAP contribution using the EU climate coefficients. This climate-relevant expenditure serves as input to monitor progress on the goal for climate mainstreaming across all EU programmes, with a target of 25% of EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives.

Biodiversity

Protecting biodiversity and strengthening the resilience of ecosystems are indispensable for achieving our sustainable growth objectives. As provided in the Commission communication ‘A budget for Europe 2020’, financing the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and its objective to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity in the EU requires the mainstreaming of biodiversity throughout the EU budget, both within the EU via the main domestic funding instruments and through external action funding.

Thanks to its enhanced green architecture, the CAP for 2023-2027 has a range of instruments that can contribute to supporting biodiversity. This is in line with the CAP specific objective to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhancing ecosystem services and preserving habitats and landscapes. The enhanced green architecture strongly reinforces conditionality (previously cross-compliance and greening) that links area- and animal-based support to the respect of a number of statutory management requirements and nine standards for good agricultural and environmental conditions. Conditionality is also the baseline for other incentive measures supported by the CAP. Two good agricultural and environmental conditions have biodiversity protection as their main objective: GAEC 8 concerns the protection of non-productive and biodiversity relevant areas and features, while GAEC 9 sets a ban on converting and ploughing environmentally-sensitive permanent grasslands in Natura 2000 sites. Other GAECs also contribute importantly to biodiversity even if it is not their primary role (maintenance of permanent grassland, protection of peatland and wetlands, establishment of buffer strips along water courses, crop rotation, soil cover). The wide area coverage and the compulsory nature of conditionality amplify its positive effects.

In addition, a new policy instrument developed under the CAP 2023-2027 – eco-schemes – contributes to biodiversity. Eco-schemes represent at least 25% of the direct payments, and Member States have proposed many eco-schemes targeting biodiversity issues. 

Moreover, rural development measures such as agri-environment-climate commitments, organic farming and Natura 2000 payments make an important contribution to biodiversity objectives. They have significant effects in encouraging farmers to reach ambitious biodiversity goals through support for biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices such as maintaining semi-natural habitats and landscape features, and creating new habitats beneficial for biodiversity. The potential of other relevant rural development measures should not be underestimated. For instance, non-productive investments that help establish and/or restore landscape features such as hedgerows, stonewalls and wetlands can also play an important role. So do measures for knowledge-building, innovation and cooperation. Training and provision of farm advice also play a significant role in promoting biodiversity-friendly farming practices. 

The new methodology developed to track the biodiversity contribution of the CAP 2023-2027 takes into account the new CAP architecture and its increased green ambition, which is implemented through the national CAP strategic plans. As from the draft budget 2024, the contribution of the CAP to biodiversity is estimated by the Commission through the application of EU coefficients (100%, 40% and 0%) and weighting factors (100%, 70% and 50%) that aim to reflect the differentiated contribution of each type of intervention towards the biodiversity objective. This includes direct and indirect contributions, including whether the support is subject to conditionality. 

For eco-schemes and rural development interventions (other than the payments for natural or other area-specific constraints), the methodology is based on the links between each intervention and the three environmental and climate specific objectives referred to in points (d), (e) and (f) of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, the CAP strategic plans regulation, i.e.

•  ‘(d) to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, including by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration, as well as to promote sustainable energy; [hereafter SO4]
• (e) to foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air, including by reducing chemical dependency; [hereafter SO5])
• (f) to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhance ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes.’ [hereafter SO6] ⁽²⁾

Member States were asked to make such links for each intervention in their CAP strategic plans. Based on these links, several categories of spending are distinguished.

• Interventions for which Member States have flagged the ‘biodiversity’ objective (SO6) ⁽³⁾.
• Interventions linked only to SO6 have only the objective to contribute to biodiversity. Therefore, an EU coefficient of 100% is applied to 100% of the financial allocations ⁽⁴⁾. 
• Interventions linked to both SO6 and SO4 and/or SO5 also aim to contribute to climate- and other environment-related objectives. The fact that biodiversity has not been flagged as the only objective is reflected by a weighting factor: as a rule of thumb, the EU coefficient of 100% is applied to only 70% of the financial allocations.
• Interventions linked to SO6 and other SOs (other than SO4 and SO5) are considered to contribute only partly to biodiversity. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, the EU coefficient of 100% is applied to 50% of the financial allocations. 

Interventions for which Member States have not flagged the ‘biodiversity’ objective (SO6).

• Interventions linked to SO4 and/or SO5 (but not SO6) have not been flagged by Member States as contributing to biodiversity, but they can nevertheless provide a useful contribution to it by addressing drivers of biodiversity loss such as those linked to climate change and water, soil and air pollution. They are, therefore, considered to make an indirect contribution to biodiversity. This is reflected by applying an EU coefficient of 40% to 100% of the financial allocations. 
• For interventions linked to SO4 and/or SO5 and other SOs, an EU coefficient of 40% is applied to 50% of the financial allocations. 

Direct payments other than eco-schemes (included under the previous part of the methodology) and payments for natural or other area-specific constraints (ANC) are considered to contribute to biodiversity objectives because they are subject to conditionality. Moreover, payments for natural or other area-specific constraints limit land abandonment, which can indirectly contribute to preserving farmland biodiversity. The EU decided to allow derogations from the first requirement of GAEC 8 and to the full GAEC 7 (rotation) obligations in 2023⁽¹⁾ as part of the measures taken to address the unprecedented uncertainties related food security, triggered by the war of aggression in Ukraine. To take account of the reduced scope of the GAECs in 2023, an EU coefficient of 2% is applied to these financial allocations in the draft budget 2024. From calendar year 2024/financial year 2025, this coefficient is brought to 3% following a partial derogation to GAEC 8 in 2024 (and no derogation from GAEC 7) instead of the 4% planned for the situation without any derogation – and instead of the 2% planned in 2023 for the full derogation of GAEC 8 first requirement and of GAEC 7. The adoption of a simplification package on certain GAECs for the rest of the period will only partly impact 2024, and, apart from the deletion of GAEC 8 first requirement, consists essentially of adjustments with limited impacts.

^{(1)  Area-based payments for claim year 2023 are, as a rule, financed by the 2024 budget.}

For 2021-2023, the contribution to biodiversity was calculated as follows:

EAGF

• marker of 40% applied to the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (budget item 08 02 05 05),
• marker of 40% applied to 10% of the remaining direct payments to reflect the biodiversity contribution of cross-compliance (i.e. 4% of budget article 08 02 05) without payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment and without payments for the Small farmers scheme which were not subject to cross-compliance.

EAFRD

• marker of 100% applied to the annual commitments in Priority Area 4 “Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry” with exception of the amounts for the areas facing natural constraints,
• marker of 40% of the annual commitments in focus area 5E “Fostering carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry”.

EAGF: same method as for 2014-2022, as the amounts for direct payments in the draft budget 2023 were based on the envelopes for calendar year 2022 of Regulation EU 2013/1307.

EAFRD: in the absence of an agreed method at the time, the biodiversity contribution was established by applying the share for biodiversity from 2021 and 2022 to the annual commitments for the draft budget 2023, i.e. extrapolating the contribution based on the shares from previous years.

Clean air

From 2024, the methodology for tracking the contribution to clean air of the CAP interventions is built - to some extent  - on the approach used under biodiversity tracking, i.e. considering the links in the CAP strategic plans (CSP) interventions with the relevant specific objectives. In the CSPs, several instruments have the potential to contribute to tackling air pollution. Investments are important interventions for reducing air pollution, in particular productive investments in improved manure storage (supported in 21 CSPs) with regards to emissions from livestock farming, and in improved fertilisation techniques including precision farming with regards to emissions from arable farming. Other interventions are improved feeding management as well as implement sustainable grazing management.

The CAP has several objectives including climate change, biodiversity and environment (air, soil, water, etc). However as there is no specific objective on air quality, the methodology for clean air tracking is built as a starting point on the Result indicators (RI), in particular R.13 (Reducing emissions in the livestock sector: share of livestock units (LU) under supported commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and/or ammonia, including manure management) and R. 20 (Improving air quality: share of utilised agricultural area (UAA) under supported commitments to reduce ammonia emissions) as set up by Regulation on CAP strategic plans (Regulation EU nº 2021/2115).

All the interventions where Member States have selected R13 and R20 have been selected and analysed. It should be noted that MS could link a measure to several RI as the measures can have synergies and complementary effects, eg: injection of slurry is a measure that is designed to contribute to clean air but will also contribute to water and soil protection. Moreover, some RI are of horizontal nature and are not linked to specific farming practices. The fact that that several RIs are selected does not per se mean that the intervention is not contributing principally to air quality.

A verification was carried out for each of the preselected interventions. The interventions contributing principally to air quality were allocated 100% and the interventions contributing significantly to air quality 40%. The interventions get a 0% if following the verification it is confirmed they do not contribute to clean air, neither principally nor significantly.

The methodology for years 2021-2023 follows the previous approach: 40% of the expenditure of Focus Area 5B (energy efficiency) plus 40% of expenditure of Focus Area 5D (reducing greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions from agriculture).

^{(2) All 10 specific objectives can be found in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (see above under the section “Objectives”)}

^{(3) The link to SO1 “to support viable farm income and resilience of the agricultural sector across the EU in order to enhance long-term food security and agricultural diversity as well as to ensure the economic sustainability of agricultural production in the EU” is not taken into account for eco-schemes as it reflects that eco-schemes are a type of direct payments.}

^{(4) As direct payments are annual, the tracking is based on the annual planning of financial allocations within the CAP Strategic Plans for 2024, while the following years are based on average values for the programming period. Rural development commitments are multi-annual and therefore the calculation is based on the average for the programming period.}

^{(5)   Area-based payments for claim year 2023 are, as a general rule, financed by the 2024 budget.}

Gender

Contribution to gender equality (million EUR) (*):

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_06:table[/notranslate]

Digital

Contribution to digital transition (million EUR):

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_07:table[/notranslate]

Figures for 2021-2023: declared expenditure for focus area 6C on enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication technologies in rural areas (United Kingdom excluded). 

Broadband access in rural areas continues to improve, with an increase of 54.9 percentage points in 9 years, but is still lagging behind urban areas. In 2022, 72.9% of rural households had next-generation access compared to 91.5% of total EU households. This is the second year in a row with a clear improvement and a sustained reduction of the gap between urban and rural areas, in particular in the case of the fibre-to-the-premises coverage, which is the best technology available. Nonetheless, the connectivity gap remains a challenge for rural areas. The level of broadband access depends significantly on general developments in telecoms markets and financing from other policy tools, in particular the Recovery and Resilience Fund. The CAP plays its part by offering explicit support for setting up, expanding and improving broadband infrastructure, and for the provision of broadband internet access (i.e. improved connections to infrastructure). Based on the latest updates of the rural development programmes, the CAP will have helped nearly 13 million people living in rural areas to benefit from improved access to information and communication technology services and infrastructure over the course of the current programming period. In 2023, DG Agriculture and Rural Development continued to work closely with DG Regional and Urban Policy, DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology and DG Competition to further develop the network of Broadband Competence Offices in Member States and their regions, including a renewed Brussels-based support facility, contracted and managed by DG Agriculture and Rural Development. By the end of 2023, the broadband competence office network was comprised of 27 national and 113 offices in the EU, six offices in the western Balkan countries and one in Norway. In 2023, DG Agriculture and Rural Development continued its application of the rural proofing checklist in cases where Member States requested programming changes to broadband funding. 2023 was a year of very intensive training activities, including the annual meeting of the Broadband Competence Offices and the European Broadband Awards, and a meeting in Berlin.

Budget performance – outcomes

[notranslate]CAPWeb:budg_09:progress[/notranslate]

The new delivery model of the CAP 2023-2027 puts a strong emphasis on results and performance. The policy focuses on 10 specific objectives, linked to common EU goals for social, environmental, and economic sustainability in agriculture and rural areas. These objectives are the basis upon which Member States designed their CAP strategic plans. EU Member States contributed to the objectives by designing intervention strategies with a toolbox of broad instruments defined in the CAP legislation, which are shaped to address specific national circumstances and needs. The plans contribute to the EU’s environmental and climate objectives and targets set out in or stemming from the relevant legislation and to the ambitions of the European Green Deal.

The CAP therefore facilitates synergies by designing interventions that contribute to multiple horizontal priorities simultaneously. For example, the CAP may support the adoption of precision agriculture technologies, which not only improve the digitalisation of the agricultural sector but also contribute to more sustainable and efficient farming, thus benefiting both digital and environmental and climate priorities.
Furthermore, the CAP requires and further incentivises sustainable soil management. These requirements and interventions not only contribute to climate objectives by sequestering carbon in soil or reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to soil management, but also promote biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, addressing priorities related not only to natural resources, but also to climate and the protection of biodiversity. Sustainable soil management practices help preserve soil fertility and thus reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers, improving farms’ input autonomy and reducing their need for imports.

The CAP catalogue on interventions presents a complete overview of the planned interventions, expenditure and outputs at the EU level and per CAP plan, when relevant.

The CAP has helped to support and stabilise farm income. Between 2014 and 2023, the average EU factor income per worker increased by 35% in real terms, mainly due to major gains in labour productivity and high agricultural output prices in 2022. DG Agriculture and Rural Development ensures the implementation of a consistent system of direct payments to farmers. The delivery modes related to direct support are in place at all levels (EU and national), which ensures that income support is delivered to farmers in a consistent, efficient and regular way and in a timely manner. DG Agriculture and Rural Development develops the necessary tools to ensure a fairer and more effective and efficient targeting of direct payments towards the CAP objectives, in close cooperation with Member State authorities.

Overall, since 2014, EU price volatility has been lower than price volatility on the international markets for all products. This overall picture hides variations between different regions in the EU. For example, direct payments and rural development support represent close to 50% of farmers’ income in mountain areas, and CAP funding helps to make farms viable in the most remote rural areas. Nevertheless, the high level of total income support in mountain areas does not fully compensate for the income gap with non-mountain areas.

The backdrop of the global economic disruptions stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian unprovoked invasion of Ukraine had negative implications for the supply of key agricultural commodities and inputs. The European Commission put forward a number of measures to safeguard global food security, and supporting EU farmers and consumers most affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (see ‘budget implementation’).

The CAP continued to make a significant contribution to food security by achieving productivity gains and resilience in trade markets. It also provided support to improve supply-chain organisation. The EU accounted for 17.6% of global agri-food exports in 2022, despite a challenging international context.

As to the objective of promoting food-chain organisation, Member States reported several achievements, such as better integration in the food supply chain and the introduction of quality schemes, increased quality of food production, promotion of local markets and short supply, increased participation of farms in risk prevention and management schemes and greater prevention of risks from flooding.

Pressures on the EU agricultural resources have increased due to growing food and industrial demand, which is driven by changes in the demographics and disposable income. On the supply side, there is growing competition for the same production factors (land, labour, capital) and growing pressure on the use of natural capital (with impact on the environment and climate). Increasing agricultural productivity in a sustainable way is essential to meet the challenges of higher demand in a resource-constrained and climate-uncertain world. EU agricultural productivity is already high, partly due to increased labour productivity. However, stagnation in recent years is associated with challenges that both the agricultural sector and EU civil society have to face, such as rising food prices, climate change and loss of biodiversity. A number of drivers and policy tools are available to trigger productivity gains in EU agriculture, such as research and innovation programmes, new technologies, rural development and infrastructure, efficient advisory systems and continuous training for farm managers.

The CAP aims to facilitate job creation and maintenance by supporting investments in rural businesses and infrastructure and skills acquisition through innovation support, training and giving advice, all while paying specific attention to the nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions. There are also certain challenges linked to a development gap in rural areas, which are often less well-served by essential infrastructure and services (e.g. limited access to public transport and broadband, remote health care services) and need to be prioritised, also using other EU policies. Rural development supports all entities operating in rural areas to foster sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU and to address the rural/urban divide. Various measures under rural development programmes and CAP strategic plans contribute to this objective, including investments (providing basic services), cooperation and the exchange of knowledge and information, promoting innovation and access to training and advice.

The CAP supports young farmers via dedicated ‘young farmers’ schemes under both the EAGF and rural development. Indirectly, the CAP facilitated generational renewal by supporting the economic sustainability of jobs in rural areas. While it mainly supports farming, evidence shows significant spill-over effects on the wider rural economy, because it boosts local spending and provides employment. CAP support can be key to improving infrastructure, services and connectivity, especially in remote areas, and can also help slow the rate of depopulation and land abandonment in the EU. However, CAP support is insufficient on its own to remove the main entry barriers to farming, namely limited access to land and capital and the (perceived) disadvantages of the working and living conditions of rural areas.

In the objective of promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas, several achievements relating to small enterprises and jobs have been reported, such as diversification, the creation and development of small enterprises and job creation and maintenance in rural areas. There has also been progress in terms of the development of and access to services and local infrastructure in rural areas, participation in local development strategies, employment opportunities created via local development strategies, broadband expansion and better use of information and communications technology in rural areas. The indicator value for services/infrastructures is relatively low, partly since many of these projects are large and may require several years to be implemented.

Under the CAP 2014-2022 rules, the EAGF provided an extensive level of ‘baseline protection’ for the environment via mandatory cross-compliance and greening obligations, which together comprised more than 80% of the EU’s agricultural land. Support was decoupled from production and linked to compliance with standard environmental and climate practices, and was therefore not an incentive to increase production intensity. Since CAP payments are conditional to respecting a basic set of environment-related rules, the CAP helps enforce the implementation of existing legislation that is relevant for the environment.

The ‘greening’ scheme brought in by the 2013 CAP reform was successful in preventing further environmental damage. Although the greening scheme had the potential to promote environmental and climate practices, the choices made by Member States and farmers did not fully unlock this potential.

The CAP also provided for more targeted but voluntary commitments under rural development, such as agri-environment climate measures and organic farming. In fact, the largest share of the EAFRD fund is allocated to the objective of restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems. Here, reported achievements include an increased area of agricultural and forest land covered by management contracts to enhance biodiversity and landscapes; restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity; the improvement of water quality and management; the prevention of soil erosion and improvement of soil management; and the preservation of genetic species in grasslands and livestock. Given their tailored and targeted design, these measures were most effective in encouraging the sustainable management of natural resources. But implementation choices greatly influenced the overall impact of these measures and their uptake was limited, notably due to complex eligibility conditions and premiums too low to stimulate change, particularly in certain productive areas.
The Commission already adopted a partial derogation to the conditionality rule on non-productive areas, and on changing the rules for permanent grassland to alleviate certain difficulties.
The Commission also adopted a regulation containing substantial and targeted measures, which will amend the CAP strategic plan regulation and the horizontal regulation. The set of limited adjustments of the CAP regulations will address difficulties in the implementation of conditionality and management of the strategic plans. For farmers, these proposals will greatly reduce the burden related to controls and will facilitate compliance with certain environmental conditionalities. National administrations will also benefit from more flexibility to apply certain standards in a way that is more compatible with farming realities.
The Commission has also revised its methodology for the Area Monitoring System quality assessment, and will clarify possibilities for using geo-tagged photos and review the requirements linked to geo-tagging. It will work with Member States to determine possible ways of rationalising the controls, including by the possibility for farmers to correct an unintentional error the first time without penalty.

For the objective of promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy, uptake was generally lower than planned. This was due to the nature of the interventions, as investment projects can take some time to materialise. Implementation delays have been the subject of continuous dialogue with the Member States.
Overall, the 2014-2022 CAP provided a wide range of tools for the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, but Member States did not seize all opportunities to improve the environmental sustainability of farming and to step up climate action. The policy could have been more effective with a more strategic approach, more targeted measures and funding, and had beneficiaries been more ambitious in the implementation of these measures rather than minimising changes. These weaknesses are addressed in the CAP for the 2023-2027 period: national CAP strategic plans are crucial in guaranteeing the CAP contribution to address climate change, the protection of natural resources and biodiversity, and to supporting sustainable farming, farm incomes and food security. Before approving them, the Commission assessed whether the CAP strategic plans contribute to, and are consistent with, EU legislation and commitments in relation to climate and the environment, including those laid out in the farm-to-fork and biodiversity strategies (https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en).

Sustainable development goals

Contribution to the sustainable development goals