The Access to Land Network has just published a new legal report that goes to the heart of one of the most decisive — and least discussed — questions of European agricultural policy: who is actually entitled to receive CAP payments?
Under the current Common Agricultural Policy (2023–2027), income support is reserved for so-called “active farmers.” At first glance, this seems straightforward. Yet the term is defined only as a broad framework at EU level, leaving Member States wide discretion to determine who qualifies. The result is a patchwork of national interpretations. In some countries, social insurance registration plays a central role; in others, minimum hectares or production criteria dominate. Across Europe, the concept is applied differently — with significant consequences for who ultimately benefits from public funds.
The new report, prepared by the Brussels-based deprevernet collective for Access to Land, takes a close legal look at this framework. Its conclusion is clear: the current definition does not reliably ensure that support goes to those who actually work the land. Nor does it sufficiently prioritise farmers engaged in coherent, long-term sustainable land management.
This tension is not accidental. The concept of “active farmer” emerged as a political compromise. Earlier drafts of the CAP reform spoke of “genuine farmers,” emphasising production. The European Parliament, meanwhile, pushed to protect the family farm model. The final wording opted for a more inclusive term — broad enough to accommodate different national approaches and farming structures. While this flexibility was politically expedient, it has led to legal ambiguity and uneven implementation across Member States.
At the same time, the CAP is expected to contribute to climate action, biodiversity protection and the broader objectives of the European Green Deal. Yet the legal status of “active farmer” itself does not distinguish between short-term production models and long-term agroecological strategies. Environmental measures exist within the policy, but they remain add-ons rather than structural conditions for eligibility.
Against this backdrop — and in view of the upcoming CAP reform for 2028–2034 — the report does not stop at critique. It proposes a gradual pathway for change. Instead of presenting a single radical solution, it outlines five reform scenarios that range from moderate adjustments to a deeper restructuring of eligibility criteria. The early steps focus on strengthening and harmonising the existing definition at EU level. The later scenarios introduce a more transformative idea: complementing or even replacing the “active farmer” concept with a category of “agroecological farmer,” linked to a coherent transition plan and long-term sustainability commitments.
What makes this report particularly timely is the current legislative moment. The European Commission has already presented its proposal for the next CAP period, and negotiations between institutions are beginning. Key decisions are still open. The legal arguments developed in this analysis are therefore not abstract reflections — they are designed to inform ongoing political debates.
The question at stake is simple but far-reaching: should CAP support merely require a minimum level of agricultural activity, or should it be more clearly aligned with ecological transition and genuine engagement in farming? How much flexibility should remain at national level, and where is a stronger European framework necessary to ensure fairness and coherence?
By unpacking the legal foundations of the “active farmer” concept and mapping out realistic reform options, this report provides tools for organisations, policymakers and advocates who want to shape the next phase of the CAP. For anyone concerned with access to land, fair distribution of public funds, and the ecological future of European agriculture, it offers a well-grounded and forward-looking contribution to the debate.