REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Summary of CAP Strategic Plans for 2023-2027: joint effort and collective ambition
Date: 2023-11-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU Member State, adaptation to climate change, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, competitiveness, farming sector, management planning, sustainable agriculture

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.11.2023  COM(2023) 707 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Summary of CAP Strategic Plans for 2023-2027: joint effort and collective ambition    
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Common agricultural policy (CAP) Strategic Plans (CSPs or the Plans) are the key tool 
for delivering the CAP between 2023 and 2027. Drafted by Member States and approved 
by the Commission to ensure that overall EU objectives are met, the CSPs support farming 
and  rural  areas  with  a  total  of  EUR 307 billion  in  public  expenditure  through  the 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD) (including national co-financing). 

By  introducing  CSPs,  which  are  a  single  planning  tool,  the  EU  legislators  shifted  the 
orientation  of  CAP  implementation  from  compliance  to  performance.  Accordingly, 
Member States used the CAP instruments of both funds (direct payments, interventions 
for certain market sectors and rural development support) to design an intervention logic 
for each of the 10 specific objectives set out in the CSP Regulation (1), based on analyses 
of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) on their respective territories, 
and  their  related  needs.  After  a  structured  dialogue (2),  the  Commission  assessed  the 
submitted Plans and sent its observations to each Member State before approving revised 
draft Plans by the end of 2022 (3). 

The CAP legislation established safeguards that frame Member States’ scope of action in 
order to uphold a level  playing field and ensure collective ambition. This is done through: 
(i) common definitions and types of intervention; (ii) minimum requirements; (iii) common 
performance frameworks; (iv) minimum required spending levels  in relation to: smaller 
and medium-sized farms; young farmers;  the  environment, climate  and animal  welfare; 
and the LEADER tool for integrated local development; (v) integrating environmental and 
climate legislation into the planning and design of the CSPs. Compared to the previous 
CAP period, a greater overall contribution to achieving environment- and climate-related 
objectives through the CAP was required. Each CSP sets targets for the expected results 
using  the  common  EU  indicators,  encompassing  support  from  both  the  EAGF  and  the 
EAFRD.  However,  the  target  values  as  well  as  the  specification  of  interventions  and 
requirements  differ  across  the  CSPs,  reflecting  Member  States’  diversity  of  needs  and 
preferences. 

By addressing their specific needs, CSPs are expected to be consistent with and contribute 
to  the  Union’s  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and  commitments  and,  in 
particular, to the Union targets for 2030 set out in the Farm to Fork Strategy and the 
EU  Biodiversity  Strategy (4),  together  with  other  EU  and  national  instruments. 
Mandatory rules, including the earmarking for climate, environment and animal welfare 
under each CSP of at least 25% of direct payments for eco-schemes and at least 35% of 
EAFRD spending, play a role in ensuring this contribution. At the same time, actions under 
the CAP are expected to contribute 40% of the CAP EU funds to the achievement of the 
climate-related objectives, to be calculated according to the established methodology (5). 

(1)  See CAP Strategic Plans (CSP) Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/2115). 
(2)  In that phase, the Commission issued recommendations to each Member State, see COM(2020) 846 final. 
(3)  CAP Strategic Plans (europa.eu) 
(4)  COM(2020) 381 final and COM(2020) 380 final, respectively. 
(5)  Article 100 of the CSP Regulation. 

1 

 
 
 
 
This  report  responds  to  the  EU  legislators’  call  (6)  for  the  Commission  to  draw  up  a 
summary of the 28 approved CSPs (7) to assess their joint effort and collective ambition 
in addressing the CAP specific objectives. It also addresses the CSPs’ contribution to the 
Union’s targets for 2030 set out in the Farm to Fork and the EU Biodiversity Strategies. It 
builds on the Commission’s overview of the approved CSPs (8) and draws on a study that 
maps and analyses the Plans (9) in the form in which they were approved (by end 2022) at 
the start of the implementation period.  

The report examines the Plans’ combined efforts towards the CAP’s objectives based on 
an analysis of the needs and intervention logic established by Member States. The analysis 
focuses on the Plans’ priorities, financial allocation, targets, requirements, and voluntary 
practices. 

This report is being published during the first year of implementation of the Plans - whereas 
data  on  uptake  by  farmers  and  other  beneficiaries  are  due  only  in  2025.  This  report 
therefore  relies  on  the  values  of  indicators  planned  in  the  approved  CSPs  and  on 
qualitative  appraisal  of  the  potential  effects  of  the  choices.  The  actual  impacts  will 
depend  on  the  cumulative  effects  of  interventions  and  can  only  be  determined  through 
evaluations. Those impacts will need to be seen in conjunction with the impact of other 
EU and national instruments that address the needs identified in the CSPs - as well as 
with other external factors. 

Since  it  is  based  on  the  approved  versions  of  the  CSP  (end  2022),  this  report  does  not 
capture some of the specific consequences that the disruptions derived from the Russian 
war of aggression against Ukraine are provoking in implementing the CSPs. This is the 
case with regard to the temporary and exceptional derogations in 2023 from the new 
requirements  on  crop  rotation  and  on  minimum  share  of  arable  land  devoted  to  non-
productive  features  and  areas  in  relation  to  fallow  land  for  food  production (10).  At  the 
same  time,  in  2023,  Member  States  started  to  propose  amendments  to  their  CSPs (11). 
When assessing them, the Commission upheld that they should not lower the overall level 
of environmental contribution that allowed the Commission to approve the Plans in 2022, 
while accepting well targeted and justified adjustments. 

This report is a step in the broader process of assessing the performance of the CAP, 
following  the  lessons  of  the  2014-2020  period  outlined  in  the  Commission’s  CAP 
Performance  Report  on  that  period  (12).  Additional  information  will  come  from:  (i) 
implementation data at the level of CAP beneficiaries from 2025; (ii) assessment of the 
new delivery model in  2025;  (iii) interim evaluations  in  2026;  (iv)  annual  performance 
reports; and (v) ex-post evaluation in 2031(13).  

(6)   Article 141(2) and recital 124 of the CSP Regulation. 
(7)   Member States have one Strategic Plan each, except Belgium, which has two: one for Flanders and one 

for Wallonia. 

(8)  See Approved 28 CAP Strategic Plans (2023-2027), Summary overview for 27 Member States, Facts 

and figures, 2023. 

(9)  (Ecorys et al., 2023) Mapping and Analysis of CAP Strategic Plans, Assessment of joint efforts for 2023-

2027. 

(10)  See  Commission  Implementing  Regulation (EU)  2022/1317.  All  Member  States  but  two  applied  the 

derogations. Of these, two Member States derogated only from crop rotation. 

(11) In 2023, the Commission already received 18 proposals for amendments, from 15 Member States. By 

4 October 2023, nine amendments have already been adopted by the Commission.   

(12)  COM(2021) 815 final 
(13)  Articles 134, 140 and 141 of the CSP Regulation.  

2 

 
 
2.  SUMMARY OF THE CAP STRATEGIC PLANS AND THE JOINT 

EFFORT TOWARDS THE CAP OBJECTIVES 

2.1.  Supporting a smart, competitive, resilient and diversified agricultural 

sector to ensure long-term food security 

Decoupled income support for farm viability remains an important instrument in both the 
design  of  the  CSP  Regulation  and  the  CSPs.  Despite  the  farm  modernisation  and 
consolidation that has occurred to date, agricultural income remains substantially below 
the average wage in the rest of the economy. Market earnings are the primary source of 
farm income but CAP support plays a significant role in many sectors and Member States, 
accounting for 23% of farm income on average in 2020. 

In light of Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, financial 
support to guarantee farmers a fair standard of living remains a key element of the CAP. 
Based on predefined national budgetary allocations for 2023-2027, direct payments remain 
the CSPs’ most important financial tool. Overall, the CSPs show a significant joint effort 
to support farm income, ensure a fairer distribution of such support to smaller farms, 
and reduce income disparities in the most vulnerable sectors and disadvantaged areas. 

Support  through  direct  payments  is  conditioned  in  all  Plans  by  requirements  for 
environmentally  sustainable  farming  (enhanced  conditionality (14) 
that  are  more 
demanding than in the previous CAP period (2014-2022). This type of support is increased 
when directed towards vulnerable sectors, disadvantaged areas, and groups such as smaller 
and younger farmers. The income tools contribute to food security and to maintaining 
agricultural  activity  in  all  geographical  areas,  tackling  long-term  challenges  such  as 
maintaining  jobs  in  remote  rural  areas,  supporting  sectors  and  farming  practices  that 
sustain  livelihoods  and  landscapes,  and  slowing  down  land  abandonment  and  rural 
depopulation. 

Despite a drop in the financial allocations for income support for 2023-2027, the share of 
supported agricultural areas is expected to rise slightly compared with the previous CAP 
period (reaching 89% of EU farmland subject to conditionality).  

In  response  to  the  increased  ambition  for  fairness  in  the  EU  legislative  framework,  the 
convergence  of  income  support  levels  within  Member  States  that  still  use  ‘historical’ 
payment levels has been strengthened. All but five Member States are due to reach the 
same level of basic income support for sustainability per hectare (the BISS flat rate) across 
their  farms  by  2027.  At  the  same  time,  the  higher  level  of  resources  allocated  to  the 
complementary redistributive income support for sustainability (CRISS) reinforces income 
support  that  goes  directly  to  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms.  Additional  direct 
payments  per  hectare  for  eligible  farms  below  the  average  size  are  increasing  in  most 
Member  States.  The  new  obligation  to  redistribute  income  support  has  caused  the  total 
financial allocation dedicated to CRISS for redistributive purposes to increase significantly 
compared  with  the  previous  CAP  period,  so  that  it  now  represents  10.7%  of  direct 
payments with an additional EUR 20 billion for direct payments targeting smaller farms. 

(14)  Conditionality comprises the Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) under EU legislation outside 
the CAP and the standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions of land (GAECs) under 
the CAP legislation. 

3 

 
 
The redistributive effect that enhances fairness has been increased by some Member States, 
when relevant, by capping or reducing basic and other payments to bigger farms (11 CSPs). 

There is a pattern across the EU to  supplement income support for farming in areas 
with natural and other constraints (ANC). By compensating higher costs of producing 
food and feed in areas affected by poor climate, soil or other conditions such as mountains 
or land in dry or cold territories, this support helps maintain agricultural activity in such 
areas  and  positively  influences  socio-economic  factors.  Farms  located  in  ANC  areas, 
specially in mountain areas, are on average less intensive, with more land-use beneficial 
to the environment and biodiversity (e.g. grassland, protein crops and fallow land) (15). In 
areas  with  higher  prevalence  of extensive  and  low-input  farming  systems,  the  support 
counters  the  risk  of  land  abandonment  and  thus  helps  sustain  certain  environmental 
conditions.  

By  guaranteeing  a  minimum  income  level  to  CAP  beneficiaries,  direct  payments  also 
help  stabilise  the  sector’s  income.  Member  States’  choices  show  some  reorientation 
towards  more  targeted  tools  for  managing  income  volatility.  All  but  one  of  the  CSPs 
allocate less than 2% of their total  CAP spending to  risk management tools. Compared 
with the past, the share of holdings with supported risk management tools will increase. 
However,  this  covers  only  14%  of  all  EU  farms  concentrated  in  a  small  number  of 
Member States. 

The  slow  growth  (in  some  cases  stagnation)  in  agricultural  productivity  remains  a 
challenge in many Member States and is exacerbated by high costs (especially for labour 
and  land)  in  some  sectors.  The  CSPs  prioritise  productivity  growth  and  adoption  of 
innovative practices and technologies. Almost 400 000 beneficiaries (4% of EU farms) 
are expected to benefit from support for productive (mainly on-farm) investment. All the 
CSPs envisage such support. This signals an increased joint effort to modernise farms, 
strengthen  the  sector’s  competitiveness  and  address  environmental,  climate  and  animal 
welfare  challenges.  Investment  oriented  towards  climate  adaptation  and  improving  the 
environmental conditions that support productivity - such as soil heath - are growing in 
importance and will require greater attention. Targeted support for investment, cooperation 
and knowledge to help farmers use and adopt digital tools and systems remains rather low. 

Compared with the past, support for financial instruments (EUR 1 billion) has increased 
- facilitating access to investments, with a focus on small and young farmers as well as on 
cooperatives and producer organisations.  

The  CSPs  reflect  distinct  sectoral  realities  and,  in  particular,  the  difficulties  faced  by 
some  sectors  in  remaining  viable  in  their  regional  context  while  also  meeting  societal 
expectations. CSPs provide targeted income support (coupled income support – CIS) to 
the beef and sheep sectors – which would otherwise make a loss - and to the veal and dairy 
sectors. A better income situation should help these farms to invest and overcome their 
difficulties.  A  positive  contribution  to  biodiversity  may  be  expected  when  support  is 
preserving extensive farming, while the actual impact of CIS on climate will be determined 
through assessment after implementation. Protein crops, fruit and vegetables and certain 
other sectors also benefit from coupled support.  

(15)  See  Payments  in  areas  with  natural  constraints–  Overview  and  socio-economic  and  environmental 
features  of  farming  in  ANC  areas  based  on  FADN  data,  July  2023,  European  Commission,  DG 
Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels. 

4 

 
 
CIS will benefit 21% of EU farms (a slightly higher share than in the last reported period), 
with  a  higher  average  annual  financial  allocation  (6%  more  than  in  2022).  Over  the 
reporting period, 7% of total CAP public spending is dedicated to this tool. 

Despite the long-term trend  of  farmers receiving a decreasing  share  of the value added 
across the EU, CSPs’ use of tools to improve farmers’ position in the food supply chain 
appears  limited  –  as  evidenced  by  the  limited  allocation  of  resources  and  the  use  of 
cooperation  and  coordination  tools.  CAP  support  for  participating  in  producer  groups, 
producer organisations, local markets, short supply chains and quality schemes will reach 
around  760 000  farms  (8%  of  all  farms).  However,  for  most  Member  States  this 
represents an increase. Support for recognised fruit and vegetable producer organisations 
remains 
through  dedicated  sectoral 
programmes, made possible for the first time in the reformed CAP, is limited. 

important.  Support  for  “other  sectors” (16) 

Despite the financial efforts made to support specific sectors (especially through coupled 
support  or  sectoral  interventions),  the  CSPs  do  not  systematically  include  sectoral 
strategies across funds and instruments to address specific long-term sectoral challenges. 

2.2. Contributing to climate action, to protection of natural resources and to 

halting and reversing biodiversity loss 

Member States largely recognise the significant climate-, environment- and biodiversity-
related  challenges  of  agriculture  and  rural  areas  in  their  needs  assessment.  The 
combinations  of  obligations  (enhanced  conditionality)  and  voluntary  interventions 
included in the CSPs aim to boost the uptake of farming practices with a potential to 
reduce  negative  pressures  and  to  benefit  the  climate,  natural  resources  and 
biodiversity in many ways:  

•  Definitions laid down in the CSPs (e.g. for agricultural activity, agricultural area, 
eligible hectare and permanent grassland) are an entry point for CAP support and 
set out certain minimum obligations. Compared to the past, there can be a better 
response to biodiversity and climate challenges as some Plans are benefiting from 
the  legal  framework  to  allow  more  space  for  nature  (e.g.  non-productive 
landscape  features  and  areas)  or  for  certain  beneficial  activities  (paludiculture 
and agri-photovoltaics) in eligible areas, thus ensuring support for these areas and, 
where  applicable,  protection  even  though  they  are  not  primarily  agricultural  in 
character. 

•  Higher  standards  for  farming  practices  as  a  condition  for  receiving  CAP 
support (enhanced conditionality) will apply to 89% of EU farmland (17). For a 
number of farmers, this is a substantial change because conditionality is upgraded 
compared with the previous period’s ‘greening’ practices supported then with 30% 
of direct payments.  

•  On a voluntary basis, some farmers will be rewarded for implementing further 
and more ambitious practices - beyond the requirements of the conditionality - 
that address key pressures on natural resources, the climate and biodiversity. These 
will  be 
expenditure 
(EUR 97.6 billion) (18).  (Multi-)annual  support  for  improving  farming  practices 

supported  with  32%  of 

the  CSPs’  public 

(16)  Sectors other than fruit and vegetables, apiculture, wine, hops, and olive oil and table olives. 
(17)  Standards apply to different shares of land in function of their specific purpose. 
(18)  This includes animal welfare support. 

5 

 
 
through eco-schemes (EUR 44.7 billion) and agri-environment-climate and other 
management  commitments  (EUR 33.2 billion)  is  supplemented  by  various  other 
tools. These include targeted investments (EUR 8.6 billion), and support for ANCs 
(contributing EUR 9.4 billion) that, by limiting land abandonment, can indirectly 
contribute to preserving farmland biodiversity. Uptake of this support is voluntary, 
so the precise contributions will only be known after implementation.  

The CSPs are an important but not the only tool to reach the EU Farm to Fork and 
Biodiversity Strategies’ targets, which also depend on other EU and national instruments. 
Yet, they demonstrate a contribution to reaching the various targets.  Except for organic 
farming, the CSPs generally do not quantify national aspirations or contributions to these 
targets,  thus  reflecting  the  absence  of  a  legal  obligation  as  well  as,  in  some  cases, 
methodological and technical difficulties in doing so. 

The EU has reduced its greenhouse gas  emissions from agriculture by more than 20% 
since 1990. Even if emissions have been more stable in the last 10 years, output efficiency 
(i.e. lower emissions per unit of output) has increased. To enhance the contribution of the 
EU farming sector to the EU climate objectives, multiple CSP actions were designed for 
both carbon sinks and emission sources. 

In particular, CSPs show significant efforts on practices for carbon sequestration and 
storage in soil and in biomass through a mix of conditionality (with the protections for 
wetlands  and  peatlands,  fully  applicable  to  all  Member  States  in  2025)  and  voluntary 
interventions in relation to: further soil improvements; conservation and management of 
permanent  grasslands,  wetlands  and  peatlands;  and  support  for  (agro-)forestry  and 
landscape features. 

Conditionality-induced improvements in tillage, soil cover and crop rotation have raised 
the  threshold  for  the  ambition  of  funded  voluntary  actions  to  improve  nutrient 
management.  Together  with  support  for  lower  usage  of  mineral  fertilisers  targeting 
around 15% of the EU’s agricultural land and investment in precision farming, it is helping 
to reduce N2O emissions. Overall, 35% of the EU’s farmland should benefit from land-
based voluntary actions for both carbon sequestration and reduction of N2O emissions. 

CSPs’ support for extensive livestock systems helps to maintain not only carbon stocks 
but also traditional landscapes, while improving feed autonomy and economic activities 
on marginal land. Many CSPs recognise explicitly the need to reduce livestock-related 
emissions  (notably  methane  from  ruminants).  In  particular,  CSPs  include  support  for 
investments in: improving manure storage and management; equipment for low-emission 
slurry spreading; and anaerobic digesters. This will be supplemented by support for genetic 
improvements.  Less  than  half  of  the  CSPs  include  other  relevant  support  (e.g. for 
outdoor  grazing,  improvement  of  feeding  plans  and  feed  additives)  and  set  (widely 
differing) targets (2.4% of EU livestock units) to reduce methane or ammonia emissions. 
Maximum livestock densities feature in several land-based interventions, including also 
for coupled support in some environmental hotspots.  

The potential to increase sustainable energy production through the CSPs comes mainly 
from support for the use of agri-photovoltaics and investment in biomethane production. 
With  a  relatively  small  (1 556 MW)  contribution  over  the  period,  the  CSPs  only 
complement measures outside the CAP. 

The combined effects of the overall contribution of CSP tools to climate change mitigation 
are still difficult to assess at this stage and have to be seen together with those of national 

6 

 
tools and climate-planning instruments in the context of the upgraded LULUCF (19) and 
Effort Sharing Regulations (20). In this regard, in 2023 Member States are assessing the 
need to review their CSPs in light of the new LULUCF and Effort Sharing Regulations’ 
targets (21), providing them an opportunity to assess the mitigation potential of their CSPs 
in light of the higher climate ambition.  

The  CSPs  generally  acknowledge  the  need  to  improve  the  farming  sector’s  climate 
resilience and to better prepare for extreme weather events and water risks with the help 
of climate-adapted livestock and crops. The CSPs show potential to address resilience 
through  their  contribution  to  carbon  sequestration,  soil  protection  and  diversified 
landscapes. 

More specifically, with regard to water scarcity and droughts - which are an increasing 
problem  in  many  regions  in  the  EU  -  the  CSPs  tend  to  focus  on  investment  in  water 
storage and irrigation. 4.5% of EU farmland is targeted for improving the water balance 
through land-based practices, and some Member States with greater needs in this area 
address them outside their CSPs. Approaches to adapt to the decrease of available water 
and  ensure  long-term  resilience  (through  nature-based  solutions,  water  retention  in  the 
landscape, less water-intensive crops, water reuse) will have to be reinforced and better 
integrated  with  long-term  strategic  planning  on  the  adaptation  and  resilience  of 
agriculture. Actions outside the CAP via plans on river basin management, drought and 
adaptation will also be important in this regard. 

The Plans make  a substantial effort  with  regard to soil protection  (emphasising  soil 
erosion and organic matter content) and, albeit to a lesser extent, on nutrient management 
and water quality. Compared with the past, overall, conditionality requires longer soil 
coverage,  better  tillage  practices  and  crop  rotation,  and  wider  buffer  strips  along  water 
courses.  It  also  incorporates  statutory  management  requirements  regarding  phosphate 
pollution. Most Member States have increased, often significantly, the area targeted by 
voluntary measures to improve soil quality (47% of EU farmland, up from 15% in 2021). 
Some  of  these  measures  directly  or  indirectly  prevent  nutrient  losses  and  lead  to  better 
water  quality.  Most  CSPs  address  air  quality,  focusing  on  investments  and  nutrient 
application  approaches  which  reduce  ammonia  emissions  -  but  with  limited  land 
coverage (6% EU farmland). 

Contribution to Green Deal targets 

CSPs show a substantial contribution towards the Farm to Fork Strategy target to 
farm 25% of EU farmland organically by 2030. By 2027, an estimated 10% of 
the EU’s agricultural area should receive CSP support for organic farming (up 
from 5.6% in 2020). Support for investments and promotion, as well as training and 
advice  for  organic  producers,  also  contribute.  Complementary  national  initiatives 
(taken  within  the  national  organic  action  plans)  on  capacity-building,  market 
development  and public  procurement  will help  achieve the EU target.  At national 
level, ambitions announced in relation to this target range between 5% and 30% of 
farmland. 

(19)  Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry; see consolidated text of the LULUCF Regulation (Regulation 

(EU) 2018/841). 

(20)  See consolidated text of the Effort Sharing Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/842).  
(21)  Pursuant to Article 120 of the CSP Regulation. 

7 

 
 
Contribution to Green Deal targets 

The CSPs show good potential to contribute to the Farm to Fork Strategy target of 
a reduced use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030. Mandatory crop 
rotation  (required  by  enhanced  conditionality)  is  helping  the  implementation  of 
integrated  pest  management  (IPM)  across  all  EU  arable  land.  Other  elements  of 
conditionality (for example, the ban on pesticide use along water courses, and the 
requirement to maintain fallow land and landscape features that help combat pests) 
contribute significantly. Reduction will be enhanced by targeted voluntary schemes 
(e.g. involving wider crop diversification and rotation, biological control, organic and 
precision  farming)  on  27%  of  the  EU’s  farmland.  However,  holistic  IPM 
approaches could have been better reflected. Efforts are expected to be substantially 
complemented by actions at national level. 

Enhanced conditionality rules concerning buffer strips along water courses and soil 
management,  coupled  with  numerous  voluntary 
interventions  for  nutrient 
management, will contribute to meeting the Farm to Fork Strategy target to halve 
nutrient losses by 2030. Restrictions on fertiliser use and support for improving soil 
health and fertility target 15% of the EU’s farmland. Fertiliser use restrictions will 
also often be supported in Natura 2000 areas. CSPs’ support for increasing nutrient 
efficiency,  including  through  manure  management  and  precision  technologies,  is 
expected to optimise fertiliser use. However, a focus on such issues is lacking in some 
areas  with  high  nutrient  losses.  The  option  of  compensating  measures  to  counter 
nutrient pollution as laid down under the Water Framework Directive (22) is rather 
under-used. 

Important challenges remain in terms of the status of biodiversity in farmland. This CAP 
has given increased attention to these challenges, as is reflected in the enlarged space for 
nature required under the new GAEC 8 and by support for engaging farmers in voluntary 
protection or restoration of biodiversity on 31% of EU farmland (for example, through 
managing grassland extensively, and maintaining landscape features). Wider-ranging eco-
schemes add to often more issue- or area- targeted agri-environment-climate commitments, 
with potential for gradual yet widespread changes in general farm practices.  

Contribution to Green Deal targets 

The  CSPs  contribute  to  increasing  the  presence  of  high  diversity  landscape 
features towards the Biodiversity Strategy target of 10% of agricultural land by 
2030. The strengthened obligation to dedicate at least 4% of arable land to non-
productive elements is a significant change for those Member States and farmers who 
relied on productive areas (nitrogen-fixing crops and  catch crops) to  comply with 
‘greening’ in 2015-2022. By itself (without counting additional, voluntary efforts) 
the rule could  potentially  make at  least  an additional million  hectares available to 
nature. Some CSPs contribute further by supporting ecological networks of features 
or by investing in creating new landscape features (in addition to maintaining those 
that exist) - thus adding extra value (particularly when such support is linked with 
training and advice). However, overall, such efforts deserve more attention. 

(22)  See consolidated text of Directive 2000/60/EC. 

8 

 
 
 
All CSPs demonstrate some contribution towards the targets stemming from the EU 
Habitats and Birds Directives. Areas of EU grassland protected against conversion and 
ploughing have expanded by 9%, and voluntary measures for improved management 
aim to cover 25% of Natura 2000 areas. Targeted schemes in  relation to species (e.g. 
measures to support coexistence with large carnivores) or habitat restoration will help to 
reach  favourable  conservation  status.  Payments  compensating  for  restrictions  in  Natura 
2000 areas (which increase recipients’ acceptance of the restrictions) will potentially reach 
more  farmers  though  there  is  still  scope  to  increase  their  use  even  further.  However, 
opportunities to support the preservation of habitats and species and the support for actions 
identified  in  the  prioritised  action  frameworks  (PAFs) (23)  could  have  been  better 
exploited. 

Even if still under-developed in some of the CAP Plans, cooperation between farmers 
on  a  landscape  scale  has  potential  to  maximise  the  effects  of  interventions.  Greater 
benefits  are  expected  from  result-based  payments  included  in  some  CSPs  (mainly  in 
relation to grasslands and meadows). Wild pollinator conservation features more strongly 
in CSPs than in the previous period. 

The CSPs acknowledge the role of multifunctional and sustainable forest management, 
but forestry support is not at their core. Dedicated financial support is relatively low 
(EUR 4.2 billion)  because  Member  States  tend  to  address  the  forestry  sector  by  other 
means (e.g. state aid and national forest funds), and some CSPs are not explicit on support. 

2.3.  Strengthening the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and animal welfare 

A third of EU farm managers were aged over 65 in 2020 and their average age was 57. 
Member  States  recognise  that  this  is  a  challenge  for  long-term  food  security  and  rural 
livelihoods, and are continuing to support generational renewal through a combination of 
tools, dedicated resources and prioritisation of support.  

The Plans support about 377 000 young farmers in setting up in agricultural activity. 
This represents an increase in most Member States. While almost all CSPs exceed the 
minimum  required  financing,  the  absolute  monetary  amounts  underpinning  this 
ambition show rather a continuation from previous period. More tangible improvements 
can nevertheless be found in: the targeting of resources; better use of financial instruments; 
better design of individual instruments; and the use of instruments in combination, within 
a strategic approach, for a cumulative effect.  

Setting-up grants and dedicated income support are two key tools complemented in many 
CSPs by higher investment intensity rates, although limited use is made of earmarked 
investment to help young farmers improve their competitiveness and of support for farm 
transfers.  However,  the  enhanced  use  of  financial  instruments  to  complement  grants 
does  increase  potential  access  to  finance  and  opportunities  to  purchase 
land. 
Complementary support for young farmers varies across CSPs but is a significant addition 
to  the  basic  income  payments  and  consistently  contributes  to  their  farms’  economic 
sustainability. 

Some needs in this domain are only partially addressed in the Plans, with actions planned 
at national level. This complementarity will play a key role in helping young people to 

(23)  Pursuant  to  Article  8  of  the  Habitats  Directive  (Council  Directive  92/43/EEC)  for  the  Multiannual 

Financial Framework period 2021 – 2027. 

9 

 
 
go into farming. Member States should optimise the interplay with national policies, given 
the significant role of other policies in fostering generational renewal and addressing 
needs in rural areas (e.g. in relation to health and education). 

Agriculture’s declining share of rural employment underscores the importance of creating 
opportunities in agriculture, forestry and other sectors, thus boosting entrepreneurship and 
inter-dependence  between  rural  and  urban  areas.  About  a  third  of  CSPs  provide  set-up 
support to new farmers to facilitate access for new entrants in general. In addition, CSPs 
devote  resources  to  creating  employment  in  other  sectors,  although  their  overall 
contribution to job growth is rather limited. Planned actions include investing not only 
in  processing  and  marketing,  and  the  creation  of  businesses  related  to  agriculture  and 
forestry, but also in tourism, the bio-economy and social services. Other EU funds are  
needed to continue to  complement CAP funding in this regard. 

The new social conditionality provides a safeguard for decent employment conditions and 
also contributes to social inclusion. CAP payments can be reduced if beneficiaries do not 
comply  with  certain  rules  on  transparent  and  predictable  working  conditions  and 
occupational health and safety. A few Member States are already applying this element of 
conditionality in 2023 and it will become mandatory for all in 2025. 

Gender equality for the first time forms part of one of the specific CAP objectives. Several 
Plans show a commitment to making progress on this by including relevant conditions for 
support (thus targeting the support in question), and by incentivising the participation of 
women in farming and rural development activities. 

Local development strategies (LDS) implemented through LEADER are a key (and 
usually the only) tool used in the CSPs to respond to the multiple needs of rural areas 
in  fields  such  as  employment,  social  inclusion,  rural  services,  and  rural  economies’ 
innovation and competitiveness. Support for ‘smart villages’ within and outside LEADER 
is expected to unlock the potential of digital, social and technological innovation in rural 
areas. A higher share of rural development funds has been dedicated to territorial strategies, 
but the absolute amounts assigned to LEADER have fallen while the overall ambition in 
terms of coverage of rural population has risen. LEADER is expected to do more with less. 
Additional efforts are needed that complement this tool. 

Contribution to Green Deal targets  

The key contributors for advancing to the Farm to Fork Strategy target of 100% 
broadband  connectivity  in  rural  areas  are  other  funds  and  programmes  with 
substantial financial resources, such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund.  Some  CSPs  also  help  (albeit  to  a  limited 
extent) in improving digital skills and small-scale infrastructure. 

Some  Plans  have  introduced  or  increased  their  efforts  to  address  needs  related  to  the 
accessibility of rural areas, better basic services and infrastructure, but the level of 
ambition has fallen overall. Only few actions are planned to help tackle rural mobility 
(exclusion) and the decarbonisation of rural transport. Continued support through other EU 
and national funds that operate in rural areas is also needed. 

There is  a new focus in  the  CAP  on the sustainability challenges  of food systems.  The 
CSPs show a greater ambition regarding animal welfare, planning support reaching 

10 

 
23%  of  EU  livestock  units (24)  underpinned  by  at  least  EUR 6.3 billion  (apart  from 
investment  support)  –  an  increase  on  the  past  period  that  is  quite  substantial  in  some 
Member  States.  The  Plans  respond  to  the  Commission’s  2020  recommendations  to 
improve animal welfare, with most of them taking action, at least to some extent, to prevent 
the tail-docking of pigs and to promote non-cage housing systems for laying hens. Most 
CSPs allocate resources to improving animal living spaces and housing conditions. They 
also support outdoor grazing practices in the dairy, beef and veal sectors. Some of these 
measures can also help reduce reliance on antimicrobials. 

Contribution to Green Deal targets 

The CSPs’ contribution to the Farm to Fork Strategy target of halving the use 
of antimicrobials is limited. This is mostly tackled outside the Plans, in particular 
by  EU  legislation  on  veterinary  medicinal  products  and  medicated  feed  (25). 
However, some Member States with high levels of antimicrobial sales for livestock 
set relatively higher targets in their CSPs to address this problem in diverse animal 
sectors, via voluntary practices and investment. 

Some  CSPs  give  attention  to  reducing  food  waste,  at  times  combined  with  efforts  at 
preserving  the  value  of  resources  -  through  investments,  sectoral  programmes  and 
cooperation. Some plans also  identify needs related to consumers’  awareness  regarding 
sustainable, healthy, and balanced diets. However, these issues are mainly considered as 
to be tackled outside the Plans.  

2.4. 

 Fostering knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The  Plans  recognise  the  role  of  a  well-functioning  agricultural  knowledge  and 
innovation  system  (AKIS)  in  modernising  the  sector,  thus  enabling  an  effective 
governance system that ensures links  between research (including Horizon Europe) and 
practice. 

Knowledge-sharing and innovation are expected to increase. Albeit to different degrees, 
all  Plans  support  knowledge  exchange  and  almost  all  include  support  for  innovation 
projects  that  underpin  all  CAP  specific  objectives  through  the  EIP-AGRI (26),  with  the 
number  of  EIP-Operational  Groups  being  expected  to  triple  compared  with  past  levels. 
Much of the advice and training will target capacity, knowledge and innovation linked to 
environmental sustainability. However, the planned financial allocation does not appear 
to match the broad range of needs to be met to accelerate transformation. 

Specific efforts are planned to support more resource-efficient and knowledge-based 
agriculture  through  precision  farming,  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  knowledge  on 
digital issues. However,  when compared with the challenges facing small and medium-
sized farms, efforts from CSPs to stimulate the use digital technologies remain rather 
limited.  

(24)  Actual differentiation of the support according to specific species will be known upon implementation, 

as well as additional details on the practices supported. 

(25)  See (consolidated) texts of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 and of Regulation (EU) 2019/4, respectively. 
(26)  European innovation partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability. 

11 

 
 
3.  CONCLUSIONS 

This assessment confirms the reformed CAP’s important role in supporting EU agriculture 
in the transition to a sustainable farming model, while also supporting farmers’ incomes as 
well as food security. 

The new CAP strategic plans are an appropriate tool to pursue CAP policy objectives 
in an integrated way as Member States use them to prepare and deliver responses to the 
challenges  across  their  territories,  while  prioritising  objectives  and  using  available 
resources in an effective and efficient way. 

The  Plans  show  continued  support  for  farm  income,  economic  sustainability  and 
resilience  of  the  agricultural  sector  throughout  the  EU.  Conditional  direct  income 
support  together  with  investments  in  modernisation  constitute  key  elements  for  the 
viability  of  the  farming  and  food  security  in  the  EU.  Their  effectiveness  and  targeting 
deserve continued attention. 

The increasing occurrence of extreme weather events and global geopolitical uncertainties 
calls for reinforcement of risk management tools and their increased uptake across 
the Union through EU or national schemes, which should be accompanied by proactive 
measures to address underlying causes and to increase farm resilience in the medium term. 
At the same time, a stronger focus on farms’ profitability, on innovation, technology and 
digitalisation as well as on training, advice and access to knowledge will be crucial.  

The Plans show potential to contribute to climate change mitigation, in particular by 
enhancing  carbon  sequestration,  while  climate  adaptation  challenges  call  for  a  more 
holistic  and  longer-term  approach  that  requires  relevant  management  practices  and 
investment. 

The Plans show progress on sustainable management of natural resources, in particular 
on soil and reducing  dependency  on  chemical  inputs. Further  efforts could  be made on 
sustainable water use and emissions of air pollutants. The Plans also have the potential 
to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, improving ecosystem services 
and preserving habitats and landscapes. However, the scale of biodiversity-related needs 
calls  for  greater  coverage  of  more  promising  schemes  (particularly  on  the  EU’s  more 
intensively farmed land) underpinned by adequate financial support. 

More  holistic  approaches  to  specific  sectors  will  be  needed,  encompassing  their 
economic,  social  and  environmental  vulnerabilities  and  benefits:  for  example,  to  help 
livestock farming to continue reducing emissions while enhancing the positive influence 
of extensive livestock systems on biodiversity, carbon sequestration, landscapes, cultural 
heritage and rural livelihoods. 

Further work is needed to support the quantification of the impacts of CSP-supported 
practices  and  investments;  the  Commission  is  working  to  develop  the  relevant 
methodologies for estimating climate impacts of CSP measures. 

With the new focus on farm working conditions and attention to gender imbalances, the 
Plans help promote social sustainability. The Plans also show efforts to revitalise farming 
-  with  a  younger  generation  and  other  entrants  from  outside  the  farming  sector.  More 
attention is also being paid to animal welfare. 

12 

 
Greater expectations concerning responses to the wide variety of socio-economic needs 
of rural areas entail heavy reliance on LEADER and the development of smart villages 
to reduce development disparities. Complementarities with other EU and national funds 
and with legislation will be key to addressing such needs further (27). 

The  outcome  of  the  CSPs  will  largely  depend  on  the  farming  community’s  level  of 
engagement. Special attention is needed to ensure a high uptake of sustainable voluntary 
farming  practices  (i.e.  eco-schemes  and  rural  development  interventions),  particularly 
because ensuring adequate support levels is challenging in view of inflationary pressure 
and increasing opportunity costs. It is also essential to share knowledge and innovation.  

Overall  progress  towards  the  CAP  objectives  and  ultimately  towards  the  Green  Deal 
targets also depends on rules and/or financial support outside the scope of the CSPs, 
as  well  as  on  other  external  factors  such  as  the  evolution  of  markets  and  consumer 
preferences. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  work  with  Member  States  to  guarantee  a  smooth 
implementation  of  the  CSPs,  maintain  the  overall  ambition  of  the  Plans  and  find 
appropriate solutions to allow progress towards the objectives.  

To fulfil CSPs’ potential during implementation, Member States and the Commission 
should pay particular attention to: reinforcing skills, training and advisory capacity at all 
levels;  fostering  exchanges  of  good  practices  to  better  guide  Member  States  and 
stakeholders; reducing the administrative burden of specific interventions; and monitoring 
implementation and results (as well as adjusting Plans where necessary). 

(27) The Commission’s 2024 report on the long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas will include reflections 

on how to enhance support for rural areas. 

13