Across Europe, in recent years, we are rethinking what security means. In a climate shaped by war on the EU’s eastern border, volatile trade flows, climate instability and disrupted supply chains, policymakers have rightly prioritised defence. But one critical area, in my view, continues to be under-prioritised: our ability to feed ourselves sustainably.
Without food security, strategic autonomy is a hollow phrase. Yet, even as the European Commission proposes joint borrowing of up to €150 billion for defence under its ReArm Europe plan – with Member States likely to spend more than €800 billion – agriculture faces a cut of over 20% in the next Common Agricultural Policy. As a member of both the Agriculture and International Trade Committees of the European Parliament, I cannot support this approach. It risks leaving our most essential sector underfunded at the very moment it is being asked to meet higher standards, adopt new technologies and respond to unprecedented environmental and geopolitical pressures.
Alongside the headline budget cut, the structural changes proposed under the Commission’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034 would also weaken agriculture’s strategic position. CAP funding – which underpins food production, rural development and environmental delivery – is set to be folded into a single “National and Regional Partnership Plan” alongside cohesion, fisheries and other funding streams. This may sound like just a technical realignment, but its consequences are political and far-reaching. It would erode the budgetary ringfence that has allowed CAP to function as a reliable long-term policy tool and instead subject agriculture to competition with other priorities. The result would be greater uncertainty for farmers and a loss of strategic focus for Europe’s food system.
“If we expect farmers to deliver food, deliver biodiversity, deliver climate action and now deliver energy as well, then the least we can do is give them a coherent policy framework and a fair budget.”
We cannot treat agriculture as a secondary concern. It underpins everything else. It deserves not only a robust and protected budget, but also a policy framework that reflects the scale of the transition ahead. That is why, in my role as Renew Europe’s lead negotiator on the European Parliament’s report on the next CAP, I proposed evolving the current two-pillar structure into a three-pillar system. This would establish a dedicated third pillar for voluntary environmental ambition – a coherent, results-based and incentive-driven pillar to replace today’s fragmented eco-schemes. Such a pillar would reward farmers as stewards of land, water, biodiversity and soil health. But, most importantly, it would be underpinned by real investment to match farmers’ ambition. If we are serious about building sustainable food systems, we need to make environmental schemes viable, not burdensome.
While it may not arrive in the form of a third pillar, the fight to better reward farmers adopting new practices, techniques and technologies continues. The idea that farmers adopting methane inhibitors, AI, precision technologies or genomics to reduce emissions should be actively supported is, in truth, commonplace at the Agriculture Committee. So too is the belief that smaller, high-nature value farms playing a role in biodiversity protection should also be supported, particularly through tailored schemes and access to nature and carbon credit markets.
As such, it is my view that public money should be directed toward active, productive farms of all sizes – farms that feed Europe and can remain viable through this transition. In 2020, just 7 percent of farms produced over 75% of our food. Meanwhile, more than 60 percent were small, often semi-subsistence holdings. All have a place, but if we want to maintain food security, we must prioritise support for those whose livelihoods depend on farming, who take on financial risk and who are central to our food and environmental goals. These are the farmers expected to adapt, invest and future-proof the sector.
But the future workforce of European agriculture is uncertain. The average age of farmers is rising fast. Entry points for younger generations remain few and far between. Land prices are inflating, access to credit is limited and bureaucracy is becoming a deterrent in itself. The next CAP must be strengthened with enhanced support for young farmers, targeted tax incentives, succession schemes and flexible pathways into farming. More support is also needed for women in agriculture, whose contribution remains under-recognised in both policy and practice. This is not only a budgetary challenge – it is a structural one. The transition to sustainable agriculture will stall without generational renewal.
The private sector must also be part of the solution. Retailers, processors and financial institutions need to see young farmers not just as grant recipients, but as strategic actors in the agri-food system. They can support innovation funds, offer preferential purchasing agreements for sustainable products and improve access to affordable finance. The necessary transition cannot be delivered on public investment alone. It must be underpinned by partnerships that reflect the shared responsibility of producers, processors and markets.
Food production, it should not be forgotten, is deeply connected to climate, energy and environmental policy. That concept will not be foreign to readers of this publication. Agriculture can – and must – play a central role in emissions reductions, biodiversity restoration and energy diversification. But farmers need a policy environment that enables them to contribute. That means removing barriers to diversification through renewables, bioeconomy solutions and carbon credit schemes. It also means reforming planning and permitting systems, unlocking grid access and supporting on-farm generation – from rooftop solar to biomethane. These can prove both essential income streams for farmers and also, more generally, building blocks of energy resilience. A coherent rural development strategy must place them at its core.
Recent developments make clear to us that energy and food security are not separate. The war in Ukraine exposed the deep links between energy dependency, agricultural inputs and food price volatility. Europe's historic reliance on Russian gas revealed structural vulnerabilities in both the energy and agri-food sectors. The recent EU–US LNG agreement – which I supported as part of the International Trade Committee – will provide some breathing space. But LNG must be treated as a transitional lever, not a permanent solution. Europe needs to accelerate investment in renewables – especially in countries like Ireland, where offshore wind capacity offers not just energy security, but new economic opportunities for coastal and rural regions. Linking this to a wider European energy grid is not just technically feasible – it is strategically urgent.
The environmental and economic case for a strong CAP is clear. But what is now often overlooked is the security argument. If we expect farmers to deliver food, deliver biodiversity, deliver climate action and now deliver energy as well, then the least we can do is give them a coherent policy framework and a fair budget. The transformation expected of European agriculture cannot be achieved with declining supports and increasing red tape. The next CAP must remain a distinct, properly resourced tool with the flexibility and focus required to meet this moment. Food, energy and defence cannot be treated in isolation. Farmers must be at the centre of any credible plan for Europe’s future defence and energy security. Their role is growing, not shrinking, and will continue to do so. We must reflect that in how we fund and support them.
Become a subscriber and receive the digital edition of European Energy Innovation every quarter.
