Autonomy, Identity, and the Future of European Farming

As negotiations for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) intensify, European agriculture stands at a decisive historical juncture. The debate now extends far beyond numerical speculations or sectoral envelopes. It concerns the identity of the European countryside, the balance of powers between Brussels and national institutions, and the resilience of the continent’s food systems in an era marked by geopolitical fragmentation, demographic decline, and ecological pressure.

Within this context, the evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has become a prism through which Europe’s future governance is being contested.

The CAP: from cornerstone to contested framework

The history of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) mirrors the evolution of the European project itself. In its early decades, the CAP consumed more than 70% of the European Community’s budget, a clear political declaration that agriculture was not merely an economic activity but a foundation of continental stability and sovereignty. Over time, as European competences expanded into new domains, the CAP’s share declined to around 50% in the 1990s and now stands near one-third of the EU budget in the 2023–2027 cycle. Yet, this numerical contraction does not imply diminished political relevance: instead, agriculture has become increasingly connected to environmental stewardship, territorial cohesion and food security.

The philosophical underpinnings of the CAP have likewise evolved: the traditional model of price support and market intervention has been replaced by national strategic plans, performance indicators, and environmental conditionalities. This shift seeks to modernise the policy, but it also strains relations between EU institutions and member states whose agricultural realities diverge widely. The demands of harmonisation often collide with the diversity of Europe’s farming systems, creating tensions that now resurface in the negotiations for the next MFF.

Over the past twenty years, agricultural support across member states has developed unevenly. Countries with large rural populations and substantial territorial constraints—such as Italy, Spain, and Poland—have preserved stable or slightly increasing allocations. France, although still the largest beneficiary in absolute terms, has experienced a gradual decline in relative weight, reflecting the shift from historical entitlements to performance-based instruments. Germany has maintained a steady share, anchored in its preference for predictability, regulatory rigour, and environmental innovation.

These developments reveal a structural transformation in the CAP’s mission. It has shifted from a primarily economic support tool to a multifunctional rural framework that must simultaneously address climate volatility, ecological conservation, rural depopulation, market instability, and cultural preservation. European agriculture is now expected to deliver not only food but also environmental services, landscape maintenance, and the social fabric of rural life.

Current distribution: a concentrated map of subsidies

The geography of today’s agricultural funding reflects a blend of historical inheritance and new political dynamics.

Italy remains one of the principal recipients, owing to the rich diversity of its productive landscape, its highly fragmented farm structure, and the cultural centrality of agriculture in its national identity. More than half of Italy’s agricultural land falls under mountainous or constrained conditions, reinforcing the need for stable support even as the CAP progressively shifts toward eco-schemes and performance indicators. The Italian experience demonstrates the difficulty of applying uniform frameworks to territories shaped by centuries of micro-regional differentiation.

France continues to command the largest share of resources, though its longstanding dominance has softened. The move away from interventionist tools toward environmental conditionality has created new political pressures at home, challenging a tradition of agricultural policy that once defined the rhythm of French political life. France’s trajectory illustrates the CAP’s gradual transformation from a compensation mechanism into a strategic investment instrument.

Germany’s share has remained steady, reflecting the size of its agricultural area and its long-standing preference for regulatory certainty. German agricultural policy has increasingly emphasised environmental ambition and technological modernisation, reinforcing its alignment with Brussels’ performance-oriented governance model. Yet this raises occasional frictions with member states seeking more adaptable approaches.

Spain has steadily increased its weight within the CAP architecture. Its vast rural territories, combined with intensifying climate pressures, have made agricultural support a cornerstone of regional stability and water management strategies. Spain often acts as a bridge between Mediterranean needs and pan-European compromise.

Poland represents one of the most significant shifts in the history of EU agriculture. Since its accession in 2004, it has transformed from a peripheral actor into a central agricultural power. Its large rural workforce and expanding production capacity have helped consolidate its political influence, while its advocacy of food sovereignty, competitive fairness, and national prerogatives often aligns with the positions defended by Italy. Poland’s ascent exemplifies the new political geography shaping CAP negotiations.

The Meloni government’s strategic posture

Italy approaches agriculture not merely as an economic sector but as an expression of national identity, territorial continuity, and cultural heritage. Its agricultural model—dominated by family farms, artisanal excellence, biodiversity-rich landscapes, and deeply rooted regional traditions—differs profoundly from the large-scale, industrialised systems characteristic of northern Europe.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s strategic posture has become more cohesive and assertive. The Meloni government emphasises that agriculture is integral to national sovereignty and that governance structures must respect local knowledge, regional institutions, and strategic autonomy. Rome has consistently argued for a CAP that recognises the constraints of Mediterranean agriculture, reduces bureaucratic burdens, and ensures that environmental ambition does not undermine economic viability. Italy seeks a regulatory balance that aligns sustainability with competitiveness, consolidating its position as a defender of subsidiarity in CAP implementation.

The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group articulates a vision for agriculture that closely parallels Italy’s priorities. Their platform, summarised in the document “Strong, Sovereign, Competitive,” frames agriculture as a pillar of cultural identity, territorial integrity, and civilisational continuity. The ECR approach emphasises the restoration of Europe’s food sovereignty in a volatile global environment, the simplification of regulatory frameworks, the safeguarding of rural traditions, and the alignment of environmental objectives with economic feasibility.

This is not an anti-European stance. Rather, it seeks a Europe that respects the autonomy of its nations while preserving a coordinated approach to shared challenges. It defends a model of integration grounded in subsidiarity rather than centralisation, one that recognises the continent’s profound territorial diversity.

Autonomy, subsidiarity, and Europe’s future

The debate over the next MFF raises fundamental questions about the governance of European agriculture. Proposals to consolidate agricultural and cohesion funds into broad, integrated envelopes have intensified concerns among member states that fear the dilution of sectoral specificity. Supporters of centralisation argue that uniform standards promote cohesion and administrative coherence, while critics contend that agriculture, by its nature, requires tailored policies that reflect territorial, climatic, and cultural differences.

The challenges ahead are significant: Europe faces an ageing farming population, increasing climate volatility, external competition shaped by different regulatory environments, geopolitical disruptions that threaten supply chains, and widespread dissatisfaction among farmers confronted with rising regulatory obligations and declining margins.

Addressing these pressures requires a careful balance between European solidarity and national autonomy. It demands a governance architecture rooted in subsidiarity yet capable of coordinating responses to shared threats—a structure that recognises that agricultural resilience cannot be engineered solely through centralised mechanisms.

Safeguarding the future of European agriculture requires a set of principles capable of reconciling tradition with innovation and national autonomy with European cohesion. Maintaining the CAP as a distinct budgetary pillar is essential, for merging it into broader frameworks risks diluting its strategic identity and reducing accountability. Europe must acknowledge that agricultural diversity cannot be effectively governed through exclusively centralised instruments.

Regional participation should be institutionalised throughout the CAP cycle, ensuring that territorial specificities inform national strategic plans from inception to evaluation. Such involvement strengthens democratic proximity and acknowledges the diversity of agricultural landscapes, particularly in countries like Italy where regional identities are embedded in the fabric of rural life.

Europe’s commitment to food sovereignty must be reinforced through fair-competition safeguards that ensure imported goods meet standards equivalent to those imposed on European farmers. This is indispensable for preserving internal competitiveness and ensuring consumer protection in an increasingly globalised market.

Generational renewal must be central to Europe’s agricultural vision. Without new entrants, the sector faces inevitable decline. Facilitating access to land, credit, training, and innovation ecosystems is crucial for securing long-term viability.

Finally, the environmental transition must be pursued with economic and social realism. Ambition must be matched by feasibility; otherwise, the burden risks destabilising the very communities the CAP was designed to protect.

European agriculture stands at a moment of profound reassessment. The decisions that shape the next MFF will determine not only the structure of rural economies but the cultural and territorial continuity of Europe itself. At stake is whether the CAP remains a cornerstone of identity and sovereignty or becomes subsumed within a technocratic architecture detached from the realities of rural life.

Italy, under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni and supported by the broader conservative vision articulated by the ECR Group, offers a coherent framework capable of reconciling European coordination with national autonomy. This approach is neither Eurosceptic nor nostalgic; it is a pragmatic call for an integration model that respects territorial diversity and reinforces resilience.

The coming decade will decide whether Europe’s rural landscapes remain living expressions of its civilisation or retreat into the margins of political consciousness. The strength of European agriculture, and the respect accorded to the people who sustain it, will shape the continent’s future far beyond the confines of budgetary negotiations.