Dismantling CAP Will Destroy EU

“Hungary considers unacceptable the European Commission’s proposal - part of the next seven-year EU budget- to reduce funds allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which ensures subsidies for farmers across EU member states. Both Hungary’s and all member states’ interests lie in preserving our independent, two-pillar CAP,” stressed Jozsef Viski. After a two-day meeting of EU agricultural ministers, Magyar Nemzet asked the State Secretary responsible for agricultural and rural development subsidies his thoughts on the proposed changes and their consequences

The European Commission is making it impossible to maintain the current agricultural subsidy system in the EU, thereby jeopardizing food security. (Source: Ministry of Agriculture)

Last year at this time, the first reports emerged that the Commission would consolidate all EU funds into a single plan with common implementation rules. What has happened since then?

- In the time since, agricultural organizations have continuously protested against this proposal, and even the European Parliament has taken a stand in favor of an independent CAP. Hungary has expressed its opinion on this matter very firmly. Early on, we drew the attention of the member states to the fact that this was a self-destructive idea that would devastate Europe’s farmers, rural communities, and food sovereignty—undermining hard-won achievements in sustainable farming. Last December, during Hungary’s EU presidency, agriculture ministers unanimously confirmed that we must preserve the independent, two-pillar CAP. Yet Brussels ignored farmers’ protests, ignored the European Parliament, and ignored the clear opposition of member states most affected. 

The European Commission's proposals would jeopardize the food supply security in the European Union, said Jozsef Viski (Photo: Ministry of Agriculture)

What does the new EU budget draft hold for Hungary?

– The amount proposed for our country after 2027 would be about 21% lower than the current level. If we adjust this for inflation, the situation is even more discouraging. And while they would reduce support for Hungarian farmers, they would at the same time significantly increase the duty-free import of Ukrainian agricultural products. This is a double blow: on the one hand, resources would be taken away, and on the other, the EU market would be flooded with cheap imports, which could ruin many farmers. Brussels is doing all this for the sake of war expenditures and financing Ukraine. In addition to the shrinking budget, from 2028 the distribution method would also change. Not only would they abolish the two-pillar subsidy structure, but by merging the funds they would force member states’ various sectoral policies to compete against each other for resources. This would create a very unfavorable situation for every sector of the national economy. It underestimates the strategic importance of agriculture—a fatal mistake.

It is clear that the Commission is practically distancing itself from agriculture, yet at the same time it continues to make certain overarching decisions that affect all member states.

– Indeed, what we see now is that the European Commission is essentially shifting political responsibility for the funding cuts and the dismantling of the earlier distribution method onto the member states. At the Council meeting of agriculture ministers, I also argued that the CAP can only achieve its original goals if we preserve its independence and maintain its two-pillar structure, with separate, tailored implementation rules and a strong budget. Agriculture and the food industry cannot be subordinated to any grand political goal—especially not now. Our task is to reject this misguided, conceptually flawed proposal at the very beginning of the planning process. We cannot put agriculture in a worse position during an already uncertain and unpredictable period.

Are subsidies currently flowing smoothly into the sector?

– In order to increase competitiveness, this summer we began adjudication on applications submitted for support worth more than 1,500 billion forints. This enables the largest developments of the past three decades to take place in livestock farming, horticulture, and processing. We can provide farmers with advance payments for investment subsidies under more favorable conditions than before, and from this year it is also possible to use EU-financed, interest-subsidized loans and preferential institutional guarantees. Our goal is to ensure that farmers do not face financial obstacles when implementing their developments. 

At the same time, weather-related agricultural damages posed challenges for everyone. This spring’s frost, for example, caused devastating damage in many orchards, in some cases destroying 90% of the crop. After consulting sectoral actors, we created the possibility for frost-damaged grape and fruit growers to receive advance payments of compensation, meaning that 1.45 billion forints in aid reached affected farmers more than half a year earlier than usual. To mitigate future frost damage, we even secured additional funds from the EU’s crisis reserve, so that Hungary will receive 4 billion forints in support for producers hit by the spring frosts. 

(Photo: Ministry of Agriculture)

Speaking of crises, one of the most vulnerable crops is maize. Because the damage compensation fund only covered part of the losses for drought-affected producers, we requested additional resources from the EU crisis reserve. As a result, we were able to support smaller farmers cultivating under 150 hectares with more than 6 billion forints. Payments have already gone out. The key point is that we must always respond in time and according to real needs.

For many farmers, the greatest burden is the excessive administrative obligations that make access to EU funds near impossible. What has the Ministry of Agriculture done in this regard?

– For the 2025 uniform application, we are delivering normative subsidies to farmers with fewer inspections, lower penalties in case of error, and less paperwork. In close cooperation with the State Treasury, we are working to provide further simplifications in the coming years. I should also mention that in the context of the simplification package we listened to the opinions of organizations in the field, advocacy groups, and consultants. Claims that the ministry ignores farmers’ proposals—for example, on compensation, regulation or subsidy systems—are completely unfounded. On the contrary, we have adjusted calls for proposals where necessary. Recently, the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives and Producers (MOSZ) claimed that not only do they not receive explanations from the ministry, but that we “throw their proposals out the window,” as the MOSZ president crudely put it. Even though MOSZ has used our consultative relationship mainly for political purposes, cooperation over the past years has been very much alive. We have responded substantively to all their submissions, despite their lack of openness to professional consensus. I must strongly reject the notion that the government is unwilling to implement reasonable changes to ease farmers’ burdens. This is nothing more than opposition political rhetoric. MOSZ leadership knows well what massive results we have achieved—for example in simplification and certain exemptions—through negotiations with the Commission, both in the single application system and in the popular Agro-ecology Program (AÖP), in which around 73,000 farmers are participating this year, covering 4.3 million hectares. We modified the AÖP sanction system, phased out the mandatory use of the Electronic Farming Logbook, and will decide on further simplifications next year.

Perhaps most important of all is for decisions on funding applications to be made as quickly as possible. Has anything changed in this respect compared to earlier years?

– For farmers, indeed, the most important thing is to have money in hand as soon as possible, so that they can continue producing, developing, and investing. The aim is to make the support management system more efficient and simpler, while ensuring greater coordination between agricultural administration and the Chamber of Agriculture staff—in the farmers’ interest. We see that over the past year an extraordinary demand for investment and subsidy applications has reached the ministry. Many agricultural businesses clearly see that they must act to maintain their market positions amid intensifying competition and a changing economic environment. Therefore, we are constantly reviewing earlier plans, reallocating resources to projects with the highest demand, and launching new calls to respond to emerging market and nature-related challenges.

Returning to the European Commission’s intentions: how do you assess the fact that while many farmers’ organizations—including one of the largest European agricultural advocacy groups, Copa-Cogeca—have expressed reservations and are preparing for demonstrations in Brussels, at the same time agreements with EU-wide impact, such as the Mercosur deal, are being concluded?

– The Hungarian government, when forming its position, works closely with the National Chamber of Agriculture. We are also in consultation with Copa-Cogeca leadership. Our position is the same: the future of agricultural financing cannot be sacrificed either to cuts or to merging of funds. This is particularly important in a market environment of growing uncertainty. After the flood of Ukrainian imports, we must now expect that under the Mercosur agreement, South American products will also enter the European market in large quantities. The production of food and feed there must be bound by the same strict standards accepted in the EU—we must protect Hungarian families from unsafe food ending up on their tables. Together with advocacy organizations, we must make it clear: the European Union is rushing to its downfall if it dismantles the current farm subsidy system.