Agricultural Policies and European Investment: Challenges and Opportunities for Strengthening Agricultural Resilience

European agricultural policies are currently at the centre of a structural transformation that concerns not only food production, but also the economic, environmental and social security of rural territories. In a context marked by climate change, market instability, rising energy costs, water crises, biodiversity loss and geopolitical tensions, strengthening agricultural resilience has become a strategic priority for the European Union. Agriculture can no longer be regarded solely as a traditional productive sector: it represents an essential infrastructure for food security, land protection, the sustainable management of natural resources and the cohesion of local communities.

The Common Agricultural Policy, in its 2023-2027 programming period, confirms this shift in perspective. The CAP no longer limits itself to supporting farmers’ incomes or stabilising markets, but aims to promote a more sustainable, competitive agricultural model capable of adapting to external shocks. The European Commission explicitly identifies among the objectives of the CAP the support of agricultural income, the resilience of the sector and long-term food security. Moreover, the National CAP Strategic Plans define the instruments through which each Member State intends to achieve these objectives during the 2023-2027 period. In the Italian case, the Strategic Plan aims to strengthen the competitiveness and sustainability of agriculture by addressing different territorial needs, including agricultural income, climate risks, environmental impact, quality of life in rural areas and the fight against labour exploitation.

The concept of agricultural resilience implies the capacity of agricultural systems to prevent, absorb and overcome crises of different kinds, while at the same time maintaining productivity, sustainability and social function. This resilience does not depend on a single factor, but on the interaction between public investment, technological innovation, agroecological practices, efficient water management, productive diversification, operator training, access to credit and the organisational capacity of supply chains. From this perspective, European policies represent not only a regulatory framework, but also a financial and strategic lever for guiding the choices of Member States and local actors.

European investment therefore plays a decisive role. CAP resources, integrated with other Union instruments, can support the modernisation of farms, precision agriculture, digitalisation, energy efficiency, the reduction of chemical inputs, soil protection and improved water management. Eco-schemes, agri-climate-environmental payments and rural development interventions indicate a clear direction: rewarding practices that generate environmental benefits and strengthen agriculture’s capacity to adapt to new climatic and economic conditions. However, the availability of funds does not automatically guarantee effective results. Investments must be accessible, well designed, territorially coherent and accompanied by adequate technical assistance, especially for small and medium-sized farms.

The challenges remain significant. Many European farmers operate under conditions of strong economic pressure, with reduced margins, complex bureaucracy and growing exposure to extreme climatic events. Droughts, floods, heatwaves and new plant diseases directly affect productivity and income stability. These are compounded by the volatility of international prices, global competition and the problem of generational renewal. Without policies capable of making agriculture economically sustainable, the ecological transition risks being perceived as an additional cost rather than as an opportunity for structural strengthening.

At the same time, the opportunities are considerable. More resilient agriculture can generate multiple benefits: greater food autonomy, reduced dependence on external inputs, better conservation of ecosystems, enhancement of local production and increased competitiveness in markets oriented towards quality and sustainability. Innovation can promote more efficient production systems, while agroecological practices can improve soil fertility, reduce erosion and increase the capacity of territories to withstand climatic stress. Rural areas, if supported by targeted investment, can become spaces of economic, environmental and social innovation.

This pamphlet therefore analyses the relationship between European agricultural policies, public investment and the strengthening of agricultural resilience. The objective is to identify the main challenges facing the agricultural sector and, at the same time, to highlight the opportunities offered by the European framework. The central issue is not only how to finance agriculture, but what agricultural model should be built for the coming decades. Agricultural resilience requires an integrated vision, capable of connecting productivity, sustainability, territorial justice and food security. From this perspective, European policies represent a fundamental instrument, but their effectiveness will depend on the ability to translate general objectives into concrete, measurable interventions that are genuinely useful for farmers and rural communities.

Chapter 1 – Agricultural Resilience within the Framework of European Policies

The concept of agricultural resilience now occupies a central position in the European debate on agricultural policies. Agricultural resilience refers to the capacity of the agricultural system to withstand external shocks, adapt to changing conditions and continue to guarantee food production, income for farmers, environmental protection and the stability of rural communities. It is therefore not merely a matter of reacting to a temporary crisis, but of building an agricultural model capable of functioning even in the presence of structural changes. These changes include rising temperatures, water scarcity, soil degradation, price volatility, energy dependence, geopolitical instability and the difficulty of keeping farms active in inland and marginal areas.

European agriculture faces a dual requirement. On the one hand, it must continue to produce sufficient quantities of food, guaranteeing food security and market stability. On the other hand, it must reduce its environmental impact, adapt to climate change and contribute to the protection of natural resources. This dual requirement makes agricultural resilience a complex objective, because it requires a balance between productivity, economic sustainability and ecological sustainability. A resilient agricultural system is not necessarily the one that produces the most in the short term, but the one that manages to maintain its productive capacity over time without compromising soil, water, biodiversity and social stability.

Within the European framework, the Common Agricultural Policy represents the main instrument of public intervention to support the agricultural sector. Historically, the CAP was created with the aim of guaranteeing food security, stabilising agricultural markets and ensuring an adequate income for farmers. However, over the decades, its objectives have progressively expanded. Today, the CAP concerns not only production, but also ecological transition, land management, the fight against climate change, the well-being of rural areas and generational renewal. This change reflects the awareness that agriculture cannot be isolated from the continent’s major economic and environmental challenges.

The most recent European programming period introduces greater attention to the responsibility of Member States. Through the National Strategic Plans, each country defines how to use European resources according to its own territorial needs. This approach makes it possible to adapt interventions to the specific characteristics of different agricultural systems. A territory affected by chronic drought will require different policies from an area characterised by hydrogeological risk, rural depopulation or farm fragmentation. Resilience, in fact, cannot be built with identical tools for everyone: it must be interpreted in relation to the concrete risks, available resources and productive structure of each territory.

One of the fundamental aspects of agricultural resilience is risk management. Farmers are exposed to climatic, health-related, economic and commercial risks. Extreme events such as droughts, hailstorms, floods or heatwaves can damage crops, infrastructure and livestock farms. At the same time, rising costs for fertilisers, fuel and animal feed can drastically reduce farm profitability. European policies can intervene through compensation instruments, subsidised insurance schemes, mutual funds and preventive measures. However, risk management must not be limited to compensating for damage. A truly effective strategy must invest in prevention, productive diversification, technical innovation and the capacity of farms to anticipate crises.

Agricultural resilience also depends on the quality of investment. European resources can finance technologies for precision agriculture, more efficient irrigation systems, renewable energy production plants, soil conservation practices and digital tools for crop monitoring. These investments can reduce costs, improve the use of resources and increase farms’ capacity to adapt to climate change. However, innovation must not be understood only in technological terms. Agroecological practices, crop rotation, organic farming, the reduction of chemical inputs and the development of short supply chains also represent forms of innovation, because they improve the overall stability of the agricultural system.

Another decisive element concerns the social dimension of resilience. An agricultural system cannot be considered resilient if it progressively loses skilled labour, young entrepreneurs and active rural communities. Generational renewal is one of the main critical issues in European agriculture. Many farms are managed by older farmers, while the entry of young people is hindered by the cost of land, difficulty in accessing credit, bureaucracy and income uncertainty. For this reason, European policies must support not only material investments, but also training, advisory services, access to land and the creation of decent living conditions in rural areas.

Finally, agricultural resilience implies an integrated vision of the relationship between agriculture and territory. Agriculture does not only produce food goods; it also contributes to landscape maintenance, the prevention of hydrogeological instability, biodiversity conservation and the economic vitality of peripheral areas. When a farm closes, what is lost is not only a productive unit: the social and economic fabric of the territory is also weakened. For this reason, agricultural policies must be coordinated with environmental, energy, infrastructural and social policies. Resilience cannot be built through separate interventions, but requires a coherent and multidimensional strategy.

In conclusion, agricultural resilience represents one of the main interpretative keys to contemporary European agricultural policies. It makes it possible to move beyond a limited view of agriculture as a simple productive sector and to recognise its strategic role in food security, environmental protection and territorial cohesion. European policies offer relevant instruments, but their effectiveness depends on the capacity to transform available resources into concrete, accessible interventions suited to the real needs of farmers. The challenge does not consist solely in supporting existing agriculture, but in building an agricultural system capable of facing the future with greater stability, autonomy and adaptability.

Chapter 2 – The Challenges of European Agriculture: Climate, Income and Territorial Fragilities

Agricultural resilience does not emerge in the abstract. It arises from the concrete pressure currently weighing on European farms: fields more exposed to drought, more unstable production costs, often insufficient incomes, and rural territories struggling to retain young people and skills. To understand the role of European agricultural policies, it is therefore necessary to start from the sector’s real fragilities. European agriculture is not a uniform system: a cereal farm in Northern Europe, a small Mediterranean olive-growing enterprise, an Alpine livestock farm or a fruit and vegetable holding in Southern Italy face different risks. However, they all share a common condition: the growing difficulty of planning for the future in a less predictable economic and climatic context.

The first major challenge is climate change. According to the IPCC, Europe is already exposed to significant climatic impacts, including rising temperatures, a greater frequency of extreme events, water stress and risks to ecosystems and productive activities (IPCC, 2022). For agriculture, this means that the production season becomes more uncertain. A prolonged drought can reduce yields; a sudden hailstorm can destroy months of work; a heatwave can compromise crops, livestock and water availability. In this scenario, the problem is not simply to “produce more”, but to produce more steadily, reducing the vulnerability of farms to climatic shocks.

The issue of water is particularly relevant. The European Environment Agency reported that in 2023 water scarcity affected 28% of the territory of the European Union during at least one season, while climate change is expected to increase the frequency, intensity and impact of drought episodes (European Environment Agency, 2025). This figure highlights a structural criticality: water can no longer be considered a guaranteed resource. In many areas, especially Mediterranean ones, water management becomes an essential condition for the survival of agricultural enterprises. Efficient irrigation, water recovery, infrastructure maintenance, soil protection and the choice of crops more suited to the local climate are no longer accessory interventions, but central elements of resilience.

Alongside climate pressure, there is economic fragility. The Common Agricultural Policy recognises among its objectives the support of sustainable agricultural income and the resilience of the sector, also in view of long-term food security (European Commission, n.d.). This recognition is relevant because it shows that the problem of agricultural income is not secondary. A farm can adopt sustainable practices only if it has sufficient economic margins to invest, innovate and take risks. If income remains too low or unstable, the ecological transition risks being perceived as an additional obligation rather than as a strategy for strengthening the sector.

Price volatility represents a further factor of vulnerability. Farmers often sell products subject to variable prices, while purchasing inputs (energy, fuel, fertilisers, animal feed and machinery) whose costs can rise rapidly. This imbalance reduces planning capacity. An agricultural policy oriented towards resilience must therefore consider not only direct aid, but also the strengthening of farmers’ bargaining power within supply chains. Cooperatives, producer organisations, short supply chains and aggregation tools can help farms avoid remaining isolated in the face of the market. In this sense, resilience is not only environmental: it is also economic and organisational.

Another challenge concerns the social dimension of rural territories. Many European agricultural areas suffer from population ageing, a reduction in services, difficulties in accessing training and limited generational renewal. When young people do not enter the agricultural sector, what is lost is not only labour force: innovation capacity is also lost. The agriculture of the future requires technical, digital, environmental and managerial skills. Without training and decent living conditions in rural areas, European investments risk not producing their full effects. A resilient agricultural territory is not made only of modern machinery, but also of people capable of using it, adapting it and integrating it into a sustainable productive project.

Territorial fragilities also show that resilience must be built from the bottom up. There is no single solution valid for the whole of Europe. Mediterranean areas may have priorities linked to drought, fires, erosion and water scarcity; other regions may be more exposed to floods, loss of fertile soil or changes in production seasons. For this reason, the National CAP Strategic Plans 2023-2027 play an important role: they allow Member States to adapt European instruments to the specific needs of their territories. The European Commission has indicated that the new CAP aims to support stable agricultural livelihoods and long-term food security through smarter, more competitive, resilient and diversified agriculture (European Commission, 2022).

However, the availability of European instruments does not automatically eliminate difficulties. One recurring critical issue is the distance between political objectives and the concrete capacity of farms to access interventions. Bureaucracy, administrative complexity, long timeframes and technical difficulties can limit the effectiveness of funds, especially for small and medium-sized farms. If a farmer has to deal with excessively complex procedures, the risk is that opportunities remain only on paper. Resilience therefore also requires simplification, technical assistance and continuous support.

In conclusion, the challenges of European agriculture are interconnected. Climate, water, income, markets, innovation and the social stability of territories cannot be treated separately. Agriculture is truly resilient when it manages to maintain productivity, sustainability and social continuity even in the face of crises. European policies offer a decisive framework, but their effectiveness depends on the capacity to transform general principles into practical, accessible interventions consistent with the real conditions of farms. Agricultural resilience, ultimately, is not merely a technical term: it is the concrete possibility for farmers to continue working, producing and caring for the land even in a more unstable future.

Chapter 3 – European Investment and Innovation: Opportunities for More Resilient Agriculture

Although the challenges facing European agriculture are becoming increasingly complex, opportunities are not lacking. Agricultural resilience does not depend solely on the capacity to withstand crises, but also on the possibility of transforming difficulties into opportunities for renewal. In this sense, European investment represents a fundamental lever. It can help farmers modernise their farms, reduce climate-related risks, improve the use of natural resources and strengthen the competitiveness of local production. However, for these investments to be truly effective, they must be close to the real needs of agricultural enterprises and not limited to general objectives written in policy documents.

The Common Agricultural Policy 2023-2027 moves precisely in this direction. The CAP Strategic Plans define the interventions that each Member State uses to achieve common European objectives. According to the European Commission, these plans are intended to ensure coherence among the different CAP instruments and to allow the strategic and complementary use of available resources (European Commission, n.d.-a). This aspect is important because it recognises that resilience cannot be built through a single measure. Direct payments, environmental interventions, rural development, advisory services, innovation and risk management tools are all necessary. Farmers do not need only occasional financial support, but a support system capable of accompanying them over time.

One of the most relevant opportunities concerns eco-schemes. These were introduced in the CAP 2023-2027 to support farmers who adopt practices that are more favourable to the environment and the climate. The European Commission describes them as instruments designed to help farmers reduce the negative impact of agriculture on the environment and move towards more sustainable production models (European Commission, n.d.-b). Eco-schemes can finance practices such as soil protection, the maintenance of ecological areas, the reduction of chemical inputs, the improvement of animal welfare and other forms of sustainable management. The value of these instruments is not only environmental: more fertile soil, greater biodiversity and better resource management make farms less fragile in the face of climatic shocks.

A second decisive field is rural development. European investment can support the modernisation of farms, the purchase of more efficient machinery, the construction of renewable energy plants, the improvement of water infrastructure and the diversification of economic activities. For many farmers, especially in inland or marginal areas, these interventions can make the difference between remaining in the territory and abandoning the activity. Agricultural resilience, in fact, does not concern only large, highly technological farms. It also concerns the small producer who has to face a dry season, an inefficient rural road, high energy costs or difficulties in reaching the market.

Technological innovation offers further possibilities. Precision agriculture, sensors, satellite systems, farm management software and digital tools make it possible to monitor crops more effectively, reduce waste, optimise irrigation and fertilisation and prevent certain forms of production loss. However, technology must not be idealised. A sensor or software programme does not solve agricultural problems on its own if the farm lacks skills, technical assistance or adequate digital connectivity. For this reason, modernisation must be accompanied by training and advisory support. Technology is useful when it becomes an understandable and practical tool in the hands of the farmer, not when it remains an isolated investment or one imposed from above.

Within this framework, a central role is played by AKIS, namely Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. In the 2023-2027 period, AKIS constitutes one of the cross-cutting elements of the CAP, linked to the modernisation of agriculture and rural areas through knowledge, innovation and digitalisation (EU CAP Network, n.d.). This means that resilience does not depend only on the money available, but also on the circulation of skills. Researchers, advisors, farmers, national networks and institutions must engage in dialogue. The best solutions often arise precisely from the meeting between scientific knowledge and practical knowledge of the territory. A farmer knows their own soil, their own seasons and the daily difficulties of their farm; research can offer tools to interpret and address these problems with greater precision.

The “Farm to Fork” strategy also contributes to defining the framework of opportunities. The European Commission has identified as an objective the construction of a food system that is fairer, healthier and more respectful of the environment (European Commission, 2020). This approach broadens the perspective beyond the individual farm. Resilience does not concern only production, but the entire supply chain: processing, distribution, consumption, food quality, waste reduction and the relationship between producers and citizens. If the market recognises the value of sustainable, local and high-quality products, farmers can receive a concrete economic incentive to invest in better practices.

For Italy, these opportunities take on particular significance. The Italian CAP Strategic Plan aims to strengthen the competitiveness and sustainability of national agriculture, responding to different territorial needs: adequate income, protection against adverse climatic events, reduction of environmental impact, the fight against labour exploitation and the improvement of quality of life in rural areas (European Commission, n.d.-c). This approach shows that agricultural resilience cannot be reduced to a technical issue. It also concerns the dignity of work, territorial justice and the capacity of rural communities to remain alive.

The critical point, however, remains implementation. European investment is a real opportunity only if it becomes accessible. A small farmer who cannot navigate calls for funding, digital platforms, technical requirements and administrative documentation risks being excluded. For this reason, simplification and technical assistance are an integral part of resilience. It is not enough to finance innovation: it must be made usable. It is not enough to speak about sustainability: it is necessary to prevent the transition from weighing disproportionately on those with fewer resources.

In conclusion, European investment can significantly strengthen agricultural resilience, but only if it is integrated into a coherent vision. Eco-schemes, rural development, digital innovation, AKIS, sustainable supply chains and support for territories must work together. European agriculture needs modern tools, but also trust, continuity and institutional proximity. Resilience is not built only in regulations: it is built in fields, farms, consortia, cooperatives and rural communities. It is there that European policies must demonstrate their concrete effectiveness.

Chapter 4 – Rural Territories, Labour and Generational Renewal: The Human Dimension of Agricultural Resilience

Agricultural resilience does not concern only fields, machinery, European funds or production techniques. It concerns, first and foremost, the people who live and work in rural territories. An agricultural system may have advanced technological tools, but it remains fragile if farms close, if young people leave the countryside, if workers are not protected or if essential services disappear from small municipalities. For this reason, speaking about agricultural resilience also means speaking about communities, the dignity of work, the transmission of skills and quality of life in rural areas.

The European Union has recognised this dimension in its long-term vision for rural areas, which looks towards 2040 and identifies four main directions: stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural territories (European Commission, n.d.-a). This approach is important because it moves beyond the idea of the countryside as a marginal or backward space. Rural areas are not only places of agricultural production: they are territories that preserve landscape, biodiversity, productive memory, social relations and natural resources. When a rural community weakens, agriculture also becomes more vulnerable.

One of the most relevant problems is generational renewal. The new CAP 2023-2027 includes specific interventions for young farmers, leaving Member States with the task of adapting the measures to national conditions (European Commission, n.d.-b). Support for young people is not a secondary issue. Without new generations, agriculture risks losing continuity, innovative capacity and territorial rootedness. A young person who decides to start or take over a farm faces concrete obstacles: the cost of land, access to credit, bureaucracy, income uncertainty, difficulty in finding skilled labour and, in many territories, a lack of public services and digital infrastructure.

The problem cannot be reduced to a lack of interest among young people. Interest often exists, but sufficiently stable conditions do not exist to turn it into a life project. The agricultural choice requires time, capital, skills and a strong capacity to bear risk. A young farmer does not invest only in an economic activity: they invest in a way of life connected to the territory, the seasons, the family and the community. If public policies aim to encourage generational renewal, they must therefore act on several levels: first-installation grants, training, advisory services, access to land, digitalisation, administrative simplification and services in rural areas.

Alongside young people, there is the condition of agricultural workers. The CAP 2023-2027 introduces so-called social conditionality, linking certain European payments to compliance with minimum labour and safety standards (European Commission, n.d.-c). This is a significant change, because it recognises that sustainability cannot be only environmental. Agriculture that protects the soil but tolerates irregular or unsafe working conditions cannot be considered truly sustainable. Agricultural resilience requires solid enterprises, but also dignified work, respected contracts and safety in the workplace.

This dimension is particularly important in labour-intensive sectors, such as fruit and vegetables, viticulture, seasonal harvesting and some specialised productions. In these areas, competitiveness cannot be based on the compression of workers’ rights. A resilient supply chain must be able to distribute value more evenly, preventing the weight of competition from falling on the weakest links: small producers, farm labourers, seasonal workers and peripheral territories. The European Commission has linked a socially sustainable CAP to three main aspects: support for active farmers, social conditionality and greater convergence of payments (European Commission, n.d.-c). These tools do not solve all critical issues by themselves, but they indicate a clear political direction.

The resilience of rural territories also depends on services. Schools, healthcare, transport, internet connection, technical assistance, access to credit and administrative offices are concrete conditions for keeping communities alive. If an agricultural territory loses services, it becomes less attractive for families, young entrepreneurs and workers. As a result, agriculture itself weakens. Digital innovation can help reduce some distances, but only if adequate infrastructure exists. Farmers cannot be expected to use complex digital tools if many rural areas still lack reliable connections or adequate technical support.

Another element that is often underestimated is farmers’ practical knowledge. European policies work better when they do not treat farmers simply as recipients of rules, but as active subjects. Those who work in the fields every day know the behaviour of the soil, the changes in the seasons, water-related difficulties, crop responses and the concrete limits of administrative measures. For this reason, decision-making processes should place greater value on the participation of rural communities. Resilience cannot only be designed from above: it must be built with those who experience agricultural reality on a daily basis.

Within this framework, cooperatives, consortia, producer organisations and territorial networks can play a decisive role. They allow farms not to face alone the costs of innovation, access to markets, risk management and bureaucratic complexity. An isolated small farm has fewer tools with which to respond to shocks; an organised territorial network can share skills, equipment, services, commercial strategies and bargaining power. Resilience, therefore, is not only an individual quality of the farm, but a collective property of the territory.

In conclusion, the human dimension of agricultural resilience is essential. European policies can finance innovation, sustainability and competitiveness, but their success depends on the capacity to support people: young people entering the sector, farmers who remain in difficult territories, workers demanding dignified conditions and rural communities that wish to continue living. Strengthening agricultural resilience means making possible a concrete continuity between land, work and community. Without this human dimension, even the best European strategy risks remaining incomplete.

Chapter 5 – From Policies to Interventions: Concrete Tools to Strengthen Agricultural Resilience

Agricultural resilience becomes real only when policies are transformed into concrete interventions. Objectives such as sustainability, innovation, income protection and climate adaptation have value only if they reach farms in usable forms: accessible funding, technical advice, risk management tools, efficient infrastructure and understandable administrative procedures. For this reason, the central issue is not only to establish what resources the European Union makes available, but to understand how these resources can affect farmers’ daily lives.

The CAP 2023-2027 is built around ten fundamental objectives, integrating economic, environmental and social dimensions. These include support for fair agricultural income, stronger competitiveness, rebalancing power in the food supply chain, climate action, environmental protection, generational renewal and the vitality of rural areas (European Commission, n.d.-a). This structure shows that resilience cannot be reduced to a single problem. A farm may be fragile because it is exposed to drought, but also because it receives prices that are too low, cannot access credit, cannot find skilled labour or operates in an area lacking services. Consequently, interventions must be integrated.

A first concrete instrument is income support. CAP direct payments aim to stabilise farmers’ income and contribute to European food security. In many cases, these payments represent an essential component of a farm’s economic sustainability. However, income support alone is not enough. If it is not linked to investment, innovation and more sustainable practices, it risks preserving existing fragility rather than reducing it. Resilience requires public support to be not only compensatory, but also transformative: it must help farms become less dependent on external shocks and more capable of planning.

A second area concerns risk management tools. Extreme climatic events, plant diseases, market crises and rising costs can compromise the survival of a farm. The CAP provides measures that can support insurance schemes, mutual funds and other stabilisation instruments, but their functioning depends on farmers’ actual participation and on the simplicity of the available mechanisms. If a small producer considers these tools too expensive, too complex or unreliable, they are unlikely to use them. Risk management must therefore be conceived as a service close to farms, not as a distant procedure.

A third instrument is environmental and climate investment. The eco-schemes of the CAP 2023-2027 support agricultural practices that reduce negative impacts on the environment and the climate and promote more sustainable production models (European Commission, n.d.-b). In theory, these instruments represent an important step: farmers are not paid only to produce, but also to safeguard essential natural resources. In practice, however, their effectiveness depends on the quality of the measures. An eco-scheme works when it is understandable, economically adequate and coherent with the agronomic conditions of the territory. If, instead, it is perceived as a bureaucratic requirement, it risks failing to bring about real changes in production practices.

The environmental issue also requires critical assessment. The European Court of Auditors has pointed out that, despite the increased environmental and climate ambition of the CAP 2023-2027, there are still limitations in clearly demonstrating the contribution of the CAP Strategic Plans to the objectives of the European Green Deal (European Court of Auditors, 2024). This finding is important because it shows a gap between political intention and the measurement of results. It is not enough to declare that a measure is sustainable: it is necessary to verify whether it produces measurable changes in emissions, soil, water, biodiversity and farm resilience. Agricultural resilience therefore requires clear indicators, effective controls and the capacity to correct interventions when they do not work.

A fourth decisive field is the strengthening of farmers’ position within the supply chain. Among CAP measures, the European Commission also identifies the improvement of farmers’ bargaining power, the promotion of cooperation and the strengthening of the competitiveness of the agri-food sector (European Commission, n.d.-c). This aspect is essential. A farmer may produce sustainably, but if they remain the weakest link in the commercial chain, their farm will continue to be vulnerable. Cooperatives, producer organisations, more balanced contracts and short supply chains can help retain more value within rural territories. Economic resilience also depends on the capacity to sell better, not only to produce better.

A fifth instrument concerns infrastructural adaptation. In many agricultural areas, resilience depends on very concrete elements: rural roads, reservoirs, irrigation networks, warehouses, processing plants, digital connectivity and access to energy. Without adequate infrastructure, even innovation remains limited. Precision agriculture, for example, requires data, connectivity and skills. Efficient water management requires functioning networks and constant maintenance. Renewable energy requires initial investment and clear rules. For this reason, European funds must be coordinated with national and regional policies, avoiding fragmentation and overlaps.

Finally, there is the issue of simplification. The Council of the European Union describes the CAP 2023-2027 as being oriented towards making European agriculture fairer, greener and more result-based (Council of the European Union, n.d.). However, for farmers the most immediate result often depends on how easily they can access the measures. An excessively complex policy can exclude precisely the farms that would most need support. Administrative resilience is therefore part of agricultural resilience: clear calls for funding, predictable timelines, technical assistance and proportionate controls can increase the effectiveness of investment.

In conclusion, strengthening agricultural resilience requires a shift from a logic of generic support to a logic of targeted intervention. Income, risk, environment, supply chains, infrastructure and simplification must be treated as parts of a single system. European policies offer important tools, but their value depends on the capacity to make them practicable for those who work the land. Resilience is not measured only in policy documents: it is measured in the capacity of a farm to overcome a drought, maintain a dignified income, innovate without falling into debt and continue producing without impoverishing the territory.

Conclusion – Towards Concrete, Fair and Lasting Agricultural Resilience

Strengthening agricultural resilience represents one of the main strategic challenges of contemporary Europe. Agriculture is no longer merely an economic sector to be supported through public transfers; it is an essential component of food security, territorial stability, environmental protection and social cohesion. In a context marked by climate change, water scarcity, market volatility, pressure on agricultural incomes and the fragility of rural areas, resilience cannot be considered an accessory objective. It becomes the necessary condition to ensure that European agriculture continues to produce, innovate and care for territories even in the presence of increasingly frequent crises.

From the analysis carried out, a first fundamental point emerges: agricultural resilience is multidimensional. It does not concern only a farm’s capacity to overcome a drought or a price crisis, but the overall balance between environment, economy and society. Agriculture is resilient when it protects the soil, uses water efficiently, maintains dignified incomes, supports generational renewal, protects workers and strengthens rural communities. This approach is consistent with the CAP 2023-2027, which integrates economic, environmental and social objectives, including agricultural income, competitiveness, climate action, generational renewal and the vitality of rural areas (European Commission, n.d.-a).

Climate change makes this issue even more urgent. The IPCC report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability highlights that agricultural systems are exposed to growing risks linked to higher temperatures, extreme events and stress on natural resources (IPCC, 2022). For farmers, these phenomena are not abstract concepts: they mean more uncertain harvests, higher costs, difficulties in planning and increased economic risk. Climate resilience therefore requires investment in prevention, water management, soil protection, productive diversification and technical innovation. It is not enough to compensate for damage after a crisis; it is necessary to reduce the probability that a crisis will destroy the economic balance of a farm.

The second point concerns the role of European investment. The CAP, eco-schemes, National Strategic Plans, rural development tools and agricultural knowledge systems can support a positive transformation of the sector. Eco-schemes, in particular, are designed to encourage practices that are favourable to the environment and the climate (European Commission, n.d.-b). However, these instruments work only if they are accessible, clear and suited to the real conditions of territories. A small farmer cannot be left alone in the face of complex procedures, technical requirements that are difficult to interpret or initial investments that are too burdensome. Administrative simplification and technical assistance are not bureaucratic details: they are operational conditions of resilience.

A third central element is the human dimension. European rural areas must be considered living territories, not merely productive spaces. The European rural vision for 2040 identifies the need to build stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas (European Commission, n.d.-c). This objective requires services, infrastructure, digital connectivity, training and opportunities for young people. Without generational renewal, agriculture risks losing skills, entrepreneurial energy and continuity. Without dignified work, sustainability remains incomplete. The social conditionality introduced in the CAP 2023-2027 links payments to respect for labour standards, recognising that resilience must also include the protection of the people who work in the fields (European Commission, n.d.-d).

The fourth point concerns the measurability of interventions. European agricultural policies have increased their environmental and climate ambition, but it is not always easy to demonstrate their concrete effectiveness. The European Court of Auditors observed that the CAP Strategic Plans are greener than in the past, but not fully aligned with the Union’s climate and environmental ambitions (European Court of Auditors, 2024). This observation is essential: policies must not limit themselves to declaring objectives, but must produce verifiable results. Clear indicators, effective monitoring and the capacity to correct measures when they do not achieve the expected effects are necessary.

Agricultural resilience, therefore, is not built with a single instrument. It requires an integrated strategy that combines income support, environmental investment, risk management, innovation, training, fairer supply chains and territorial services. It also requires a more direct relationship between institutions and farmers. Those who work the land know problems that often do not appear in policy documents: the difficulty of accessing a funding call, the real cost of an investment, the shortage of labour, the uncertainty of the season, the fragility of an irrigation network and the pressure of prices imposed by the supply chain. An effective policy must listen to this experience and transform it into concrete planning.

In conclusion, European agricultural policies and investments offer significant opportunities to strengthen agricultural resilience, but their success will depend on the capacity to translate resources into tangible changes. The European agriculture of the future will need to be more sustainable, but also economically viable; more innovative, but not distant from small producers; more climate-oriented, but attentive to income and the dignity of work. Resilience is not only resistance to crisis: it is the possibility of building an agricultural model capable of lasting, adapting and generating value for communities. From this perspective, the future of European agriculture will depend on the quality of policies, but also on their capacity to remain close to the concrete life of rural territories.

• Council of the European Union. (n.d.). CAP funding rules 2023–2027. Council of the European Union.
• EU CAP Network. (n.d.). AKIS. European Union CAP Network.
• EU CAP Network. (2025). Generational renewal in the agricultural sector and young farmers. European Union CAP Network.
• European Commission. (2020). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. European Commission.
• European Commission. (n.d.-a). Key policy objectives of the CAP 2023–27. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development.
• European Commission. (n.d.-b). Eco-schemes. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development.
• European Commission. (n.d.-c). The EU rural vision. European Commission.
• European Commission. (n.d.-d). Socially sustainable CAP. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development.
• European Commission. (n.d.-e). CAP Strategic Plans. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development.
• European Commission. (n.d.-f). Italy – CAP Strategic Plan. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development.
• European Commission. (n.d.-g). Young farmers. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development.
• European Court of Auditors. (2024). Special report 20/2024: Common Agricultural Policy Plans: Greener, but not matching the EU’s ambitions for the climate and the environment. European Court of Auditors.
• European Environment Agency. (2025). Water scarcity conditions in Europe. European Environment Agency.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.