Skip to content
DRAFT OPINION (COM(2025)0560 – C100169/2025 – 2025/0241(COD))

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the Common Agriculture Policy for the period from 2028 to 2034

ENVI-PA-784303

Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety · Rapporteur: Seán Kelly

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 25 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

The Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety gives its draft opinion on the proposed regulation setting conditions for Union support to the Common Agricultural Policy from 2028 to 2034. The rapporteur argues that sustainable domestic food production cuts import dependence and emissions, that co-financed allocations including eco-schemes should only rise, and that digital and precision farming tools improve environmental performance. The draft proposes 28 amendments to the Commission proposal, covering farm stewardship, income support, environmental and climate objectives, risk management thresholds, investments, young farmers and advice services.

Committee position. The rapporteur proposes 28 amendments to the Commission proposal, arguing that sustainable domestic production, upward-only co-financed allocations, digital tools, earlier risk-management support and generational renewal strengthen the CAP's environmental and climate performance.

Key points

  1. The rapporteur states that sustainable domestic production reduces dependence on imports linked to higher emissions and lower environmental standards, and supports Union climate targets.
  2. The rapporteur calls for an upward-only approach to co-financed allocations, including eco-schemes, to ensure continuity and financial predictability.
  3. The rapporteur states that technology, digital tools and precision farming reduce inputs, emissions and nutrient losses, and that lowering the risk management threshold gives farmers earlier support.
  4. The rapporteur links generational renewal to environmental ambition, warning that without it land abandonment and loss of environmental gains may follow.
  5. Amendment 1 adds to Recital 7 that farm resilience cannot be achieved without reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land use.
  6. Amendment 2 adds to Recital 8 that protective practices must not impose disproportionate administrative or economic burdens, with proportionate requirements and flexibility for specific sectors and natural-constraint areas.
  7. Amendment 3 adds to Recital 9 that an upward-only approach applies to co-funded support allocations, so they are not reduced when Member State contributions fall short of projections.
  8. Amendments 4 and 5 add to Recital 12 that supported investments offer environmental benefits, and require clear guidance on indicators, annual reporting and consequences of underperformance.
  9. Amendments 6 to 8 add food security, competitiveness, responsible environmental practice, climate adaptation, fair rewards for environmental contributions and a comparative system on additional administrative obligations.
  10. Amendments 9 to 12 allow temporary derogations for peatlands, wetlands, buffer strips and other practices, allow areas above 2% of utilised agricultural area if justified, and make payments fair and proportionate rewards.
  11. Amendments 13 to 16 require fair and proportionate incentives, reward farmers already certified organic or delivering equivalent benefits, and ensure schemes have longevity and predictability.
  12. Amendments 17 to 28 allow lower risk-management thresholds for exceptional shocks, widen investment support to water resilience and digital infrastructure, remove the land purchase limit, and add support for young farmers' digitalisation and advice.

Who is affected

  • Farmers and other beneficiaries, who gain earlier risk-management support and rewards for environmental practices.
  • Small and medium-sized farms, for which disproportionate administrative or economic burdens must be avoided.
  • Young and new entrants to farming, who receive attention to innovation, digitalisation and attractiveness of the sector.
  • Member States, which design protective practices, set thresholds and explain support in their NRP Plans.
  • The forestry sector, where support above a certain holding size is conditional on a forest management plan, except for young new entrants.

Figures and deadlines

  • 20% threshold of average annual production or income for risk management support, with Member States able to apply a lower threshold.
  • 2% of the utilised agricultural area of the Member State as the cap on designated areas, unless duly justified.
  • 2050, the climate-neutrality objective referenced in Recital 7.
  • 2028 to 2034, the period for Union support to the Common Agricultural Policy.