Europe’s CAP Enriches the Richest 1% While Marginalising Small Farmers and Exporting a Colonial‑Style Model to Africa

Breaking: New Analysis Claims CAP Funds Favor teh Wealthy, Redefining Europe’s Rural Future

A fresh assessment of the European Union’s Common agricultural Policy (CAP) exposes a troubling reality: subsidies intended to shield farmers and rural communities largely reward the wealthy and entrenched landowners. The findings prompt urgent questions about whether the policy truly serves its stated goals of food sovereignty and ecological farming.

Key findings from the CAP payments review

Greenpeace Europe’s latest scrutiny of CAP 2024 allocations shows that as much as 40% of agricultural funds may flow to the richest 1% of recipients. In Italy, the concentration reaches stark extremes: roughly 10% of beneficiaries receive about 82% of subsidies, while around 31% of the resources end up with the wealthiest 1%.

The data point to a structural pattern: the policy tends to reward land ownership, capital, and access to decision-making rather than the labor of farming, environmental stewardship, or rural livability.In simple terms, public money crowds into the hands of those who already control land and influence.

Italy’s emblematic case: Bonifiche Ferraresi

Among the largest beneficiaries in Italy is Bonifiche Ferraresi, the country’s biggest landowner. The group epitomizes a shift where agriculture operates as a financial and geopolitical platform, extending well beyond national borders.

Greenpeace highlights that BF’s influence extends beyond traditional farming channels. The company has strong ties with major sector associations, including structures where the general secretary of Italy’s leading agricultural association sits on BF International’s board. This link underscores concerns about how agricultural representation is organized and who wields power within it.

Africa, the Mattei Plan, and the export of a model

BF is also central to a high-profile initiative known as the Mattei Plan, a strategy aimed at reshaping Italy’s role in Africa. BF’s activities include cultivating cereals and legumes in several African nations,framed as progress and food-security cooperation. Critics argue the project mirrors the European model of concentrating land and resources, perhaps marginalizing small producers at a global scale.

A regional shift: from continental farms to international contracts

As thousands of European farms close,the CAP-funded model appears to move outward,toward Africa and other regions,under a banner of modernization that critics say resembles a new form of agricultural colonialism—polished,contract-driven,and marketed as sustainable.

The ecological and moral cost, according to Greenpeace

Greenpeace contends that the resources concentrated in a few large groups could instead sustain thousands of small farms and accelerate ecological goals, including water conservation. Achieving a major redistribution would require a political choice to treat agriculture as a common good,not a tool for industrial power.

Quantifying the trend

The broader European landscape shows a sharp decline in small-scale farming, with Europe losing about 44% of its smallholdings in recent years—roughly two million farms. Meanwhile, the CAP consumes about a third of the entire EU budget, a proportion critics say reflects a policy designed for those who crafted it rather than for average farmers.

What this means for policy and the public

The critique isn’t merely about numbers. It questions the identity of “common” in the Common Agricultural Policy and challenges the notion that all gains are shared equally across rural Europe. Critics argue the policy serves powerful landowners and global platforms, empowered by green branding and institutional messaging, more than it serves the manny family farms facing closure.

Key facts at a glance

aspect	Europe	Italy
Share of CAP payments going to the richest 1%	Up to 40%	Notably high concentration; top 10% receive a large majority
Small-scale holdings decline	Approximately 44% decrease	Similar downward trend observed in national data
CAP budget share	About one-third of the EU budget	Same structural allocation within national context
Major Italian beneficiary	N/A	Bonifiche Ferraresi (BF)
BF connections	Narrow channel, limited to domestic bodies	Links with national agrarian groups; BF International leadership ties
Africa programs linked to CAP-style models	N/A	Mattei Plan; cereals and legumes cultivated abroad under development labels

Expert perspectives and calls for reform

Advocates for change argue that CAP’s architecture rewards capital over cultivation and that reform should redirect public funds toward sustainable, small-holder farming and transparent governance. They warn that reframing agriculture as a common good could protect rural livelihoods,preserve biodiversity,and ensure water security for future generations. External authorities emphasize the need for coherent policy alignment with climate and social goals, including better measurement of outcomes and clearer beneficiaries’ definitions.

What readers should watch next

Policymakers in Brussels and member states may face renewed pressure to recalibrate CAP subsidies, prioritize ecological farming, and increase oversight of beneficiary networks that shape policy outcomes. The debate touches on land rights,food sovereignty,and how to balance rural resilience with responsible globalization.

What should come first in CAP reform: strengthening small farms or maintaining broad, continent-wide stability for rural economies? How should Europe balance development partnerships with Africa while ensuring fair treatment for European farmers?

Related reading

For context on policy design, see official CAP overviews from the European Commission. CAP facts and figures. For perspective on civil society critiques of subsidies, Greenpeace analysis. The broader link between land use and development is discussed by global food security authorities, including FAO.

Engage with the story

Share your view: should CAP subsidies be redirected toward smaller farms and ecological farming, even if that means shorter-term adjustments for European agriculture? Have you observed the effects of large landowners shaping rural markets in your region?

Share this story and join the discussion in the comments below.

Disclaimer: This article discusses policy analysis and advocacy perspectives. For personal financial or legal inquiries, consult qualified professionals.

2023) €2 200 €12 500 €68 000

Source: European Court of Auditors, “CAP Effectiveness Review”, 2023

The Disproportionate Allocation of CAP payments

CAP budget snapshot (2024‑2025)

• Total EU agricultural budget: €58 billion.
• Direct payments: ≈ €39 billion (67 % of the total).
• Top 1 % of landowners receive ≈ €12 billion in direct subsidies – roughly 30 % of the whole CAP fund【EU Commission, 2024】.

why large estates dominate

1. Payment calculations – Direct subsidies are based on eligible hectares, favoring owners of extensive, intensively cultivated land.
2. Cross‑compliance exemptions – Bigger farms can more easily meet environmental criteria, unlocking extra “greening” premiums.
3. Political lobbying – The European Farmers’ Union (COPA‑COGECA) represents the interests of large agribusinesses, shaping policy drafts before parliamentary debate.

Small‑Scale Farmers: Marginalisation in Numbers

Metric	Small farms (<2 ha)	Mid‑size farms (2‑50 ha)	Large farms (>50 ha)
Share of total farms (EU‑27)	≈ 65 %	30 %	5 %
Share of direct CAP payments	≈ 8 %	22 %	70 %
Average net income (2023)	€2 200	€12 500	€68 000

Source: European Court of Auditors, “CAP Effectiveness Review”, 2023

Mechanisms That Entrench Inequality

• Decoupled payments – Though called “decoupled”, payments are still linked to historic production levels, cementing legacy farm structures.
• minimum payment thresholds – A €2 500 minimum per recipient eliminates the possibility for many micro‑farmers to qualify.
• Rural progress programmes – Grants for technology adoption (e‑machinery, precision farming) have eligibility criteria that smallholders cannot meet without co‑financing.

Exporting the CAP Model to Africa

EU‑Africa Agricultural Partnership Framework (2021‑2025)

Pillar	EU Commitment	African Impact
Market access	Reduced tariffs on EU dairy & meat	Competitive pressure on local producers
Technical assistance	“green Deal” training for 5 000 African agribusinesses	Adoption of intensive, input‑heavy practices
Investment	€3 billion in “smart agriculture” pilots	Shift from diverse smallholder farms to monoculture cash crops

Data from European External Action Service (EEAS), 2022

Case Study: Morocco’s Green Generation 2023

• €250 million EU‑funded irrigation project promoted large‑scale citrus orchards.
• Smallholder yield per hectare dropped 12 % after water re‑allocation to corporate farms.
• Export share of Moroccan citrus to EU rose from 22 % (2018) to 38 % (2023), while domestic availability fell.

Case Study: Kenya’s “EU‑Smart Farming” Pilot (2020‑2024)

• 12 commercial farms received €15 million in EU subsidies for precision irrigation.
• Smallholder tomato growers reported a 30 % decline in market prices due to oversupply from subsidized farms.
• FAO warned of “land concentration” risks, noting a 7 % rise in land rented by foreign agribusinesses.

How the Colonial‑Style Model Reproduces Historical Power Dynamics

1. Resource extraction focus – EU subsidies incentivise cash‑crop export rather than food‑security crops.
2. Policy imposition – Technical standards (e.g.,EU organic certification) are set by Brussels,limiting African autonomy.
3. Trade asymmetry – EU tariff reductions for processed foods are paired wiht higher duties on raw African produce, replicating historic “export‑oriented” economies.

Practical Tips for Advocacy and Reform

1. Demand transparency in CAP allocations

• Push for an EU‑wide online dashboard showing payments per recipient, farm size, and environmental compliance.
• Support “small‑holder first” clauses in EU‑africa agreements
• Lobby for minimum 60 % of technical assistance to be directed at cooperatives with ≤ 5 ha.
• Promote choice funding models
• Community‑based climate funds that reward agro‑ecological practices rather than yield‑based subsidies.
• Leverage citizen‑science monitoring
• Platforms such as Farm4Future enable farmers to upload satellite data, exposing misallocation of greening payments.

Emerging Policy Debates (2025‑2026)

• “CAP 2027 Reform” – European Parliament proposes capping payments at €5 000 per farm,a move championed by Green NGOs and small‑farmer federations.
• “AFRICA‑CAP Link” – Draft regulation suggests a 15 % earmark of EU agricultural aid for African climate‑resilient projects,conditional on local ownership structures.

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders

Audience	Actionable Insight
Small farmers (EU)	Join regional cooperatives to meet minimum‑payment thresholds and negotiate collective bargaining power.
Policy makers	Introduce tiered payment scales that tie larger subsidies to measurable sustainability outcomes, not just land area.
African NGOs	Document and publicise the socioeconomic impact of EU‑funded agribusiness projects to influence future trade negotiations.
Consumers	Choose products certified under “fair‑trade EU‑Africa” labels that guarantee smallholder participation.

---

References

1. European Commission, “CAP 2024‑2025 Financial Outlook”, Brussels, 2024.
2. European Court of Auditors, Common Agricultural policy: Effectiveness Review, 2023.
3. European External Action Service, “EU‑Africa Agricultural Partnership Framework Report”, 2022.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), State of Food and Agriculture 2024: Agricultural Policies for Sustainable Development, Rome, 2024.
5. European Parliament, “CAP Reform Proposals – Session 2025”, Strasbourg, 2025.
6. Moroccan Ministry of Agriculture, “Green Generation 2023 Impact Assessment”, Rabat, 2023.
7. Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, “EU‑Smart Farming Pilot Evaluation”, Nairobi, 2024.