Corruption in EU Institutions and the Common Agricultural Policy: Governance challenges and reform of CAP subsidies

This article has been prepared by Naciones en Ruinas in collaboration with Sevimun (Model United Nations). Both projects share an internationalist vocation and are driven by young people committed to the analysis, debate, and understanding of global affairs.

We hope that this article has been useful and engaging to read. Our objective is to contribute to reflection and dialogue on the main international challenges.

Those who wish to participate, collaborate, or learn more about our activities are welcome to contact us. Naciones en Ruinas is present on all social media platforms, where we share content, initiatives, and opportunities for participation.

We appreciate the interest and support of those who follow and contribute to this project, and we wish all participants an excellent experience at Sevimun.

Introduction

Since its creation, the European integration project has relied on a delicate equilibrium between supranational governance and national sovereignty. Within this institutional architecture, two policy areas reveal fundamental tensions in the functioning of the European Union: corruption within communitarian institutions and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Although these topics are frequently addressed independently, they are structurally interconnected. The CAP represents one of the largest redistributive mechanisms within the EU budget, while the management of such large financial flows inevitably raises concerns regarding transparency, accountability and corruption.

The CAP, established in 1962, was originally designed to stabilize agricultural markets, guarantee food security and ensure a fair standard of living for farmers across Europe. Over the decades, however, it has evolved into a complex system of subsidies, rural development programs and environmental incentives that distributes hundreds of billions of euros across member states. The scale of these financial transfers has made CP not only an agricultural policy but also a major political and economic instrument shaping rural development, electoral dynamics and lobbying activity across Europe.

At the same time, the EU´s institutional structure, composed of the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and national administrations, creates a multi-level governance system that can complicate oversight and accountability. Anti-corruption bodies such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) have been established to address fraud and misconduct, yet recurring scandals suggest that institutional vulnerabilities persist.

Analyzing corruption within EU institutions alongside the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy therefore provides valuable insight into broader governance challenges within the European Union. The distribution of large subsidies, the political economy of agricultural lobbying and the integrity of institutional decision-making processes all interact in ways that shape both the effectiveness and legitimacy of European policymaking.

Corruption and governance challenges in EU institutions

The European Union´s governance structure is characterized by a complex system of shared competences between supranational and national authorities. While this arrangement enables cooperation across diverse member states, it also generates accountability challenges. Responsibility for implementing EU policies is frequently divided between European institutions and national governments, creating potential gaps in oversight where irregularities may occur.

Corruption within EU institutions has periodically attracted public attention, revealing systemic vulnerabilities in decision-making processes. One of the most significant recent scandals emerged in 2022 with the so-called “Qatargate” affair, in which investigators discovered approximately 1,5 millions in cash allegedly linked to efforts by foreign governments to influence European Parliament decisions through bribery networks. The case involved several Members of the European Parliament and exposed weaknesses in transparency rules governing lobbying activities and financial disclosures.

Earlier incidents have also demonstrated how institutional processes can be manipulated. The 2011 “cash-for-amendments” scandal involved Members of the European Parliament who allegedly agreed to introduce legislative amendments in exchange for financial compensation offered by undercover journalists posing as corporate lobbyists. Although only a limited number of officials were implicated, the episode raised broader concerns about the susceptibility of legislative processes to external influence.

Beyond political corruption, procurement and administrative misconduct within EU institutions also present governance challenges. For instance, investigations by the European Public Prosecutor´s Office have examined alleged irregularities in the awarding of contracts within EU-funded initiatives, including programs related to diplomatic training and external relations. Such cases highlight the importance of transparent procurement systems and robust internal auditing mechanisms.

To address these risks, the EU has developed a set of anti-corruption institutions and legal instruments. The European Anti-Fraud Office conducts investigations into fraud affecting the EU budget, while the European Public Prosecutor's Office has the authority to prosecute criminal offenses involving EU funds. These institutions represent significant progress in supranational accountability, yet their effectiveness depends heavily on cooperation from national authorities and the willingness of member states to implement recommendations.

The political economy of the Common Agricultural Policy

The Common Agricultural Policy remains one of the most influential and controversial policies within the EU. Although its share of the EU budget has declined from approximately 70% in the early 1980´s to around 24-25% today, it still accounts for a substantial portion of European expenditures. For the 2021-2027 budget period, CAP funding amounts to roughly 387 billion.

This financial scale reflects the central role agriculture has historically played in European integration. Following the food shortages experienced after the Second World War, European leaders sought to guarantee stable food supplies while protecting rural livelihoods. The CAP introduced mechanisms such as price supports, market interventions and direct payments to farmers in order to stabilize agricultural production and reduce income volatility.

However, the distribution of subsidies under the CAP has generated persistent criticism. Payments are largely allocated based on land ownership, which tends to favor large agricultural holdings and agribusiness corporations. Studies have repeatedly shown that approximately 80% of CAP subsidies are received by about 20% of beneficiaries. As a result, large landowners and corporate farms often receive disproportionate support compared with small and medium-sized farmers.

This unequal distribution has important political consequences. Countries with large agricultural sectors –such as France, Spain, Poland and Italy– have historically defended high levels of CAP funding during EU budget negotiations. In France, for example, CAP payments constitute a significant component of rural income, while in Poland they play a crucial role in supporting small farms in economically disadvantaged regions.

The CAP has also been criticized for its environmental implications. Historically, subsidy structures encouraged intensive agricultural production, contributing to biodiversity loss, soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock sectors, particularly beef and dairy, have received significant support despite their high environmental impact. Some studies suggest that beef and lamb production receive vastly greater subsidies than plant-based protein crops such as legumes, despite the latter´s environmental benefits.

These issues illustrate how CAP functions not merely as an agricultural program but as a complex political economy shaped by national interests, lobbying groups and historical compromises within the EU.

Corruption risks in agricultural subsidies and the need for reform

The intersection between corruption and the Common Agricultural Policy becomes particularly evident when examining how subsidies are administered. Because CAP funds are distributed through national agencies in each member state, oversight occurs at multiple levels of governance. While this decentralized approach allows policies to adapt to local conditions, it also creates opportunities for fraud and misuse of funds.

Several investigations conducted by OLAF have uncovered schemes involving manipulation of subsidy applications, bribery in procurement processes, and fraudulent claims related to rural development programs. In Slovakia, for instance, authorities uncovered a network in which farmers allegedly paid bribes in order to obtain EU agricultural subsidies between 2015 and 2020. Similar irregularities have been reported in Romania, Greece and Hungary.

In many cases, corruption is linked to weaknesses in land registration systems or administrative capacity. Because subsidies are often calculated based on the amount of land owned or managed, inaccurate land records can allow individuals to claim payments for land they do not actually control. In some Eastern European countries, investigations have revealed that politically connected individuals have accumulated large areas of agricultural land in order to capture CAP subsidies.

These risks fueled debates about how the CAP should be reformed in order to improve transparency and fairness. One proposal involves capping the maximum amount of subsidies that a single farm can receive annually, often suggested at around €100,000, while redistributing additional funds to smaller farmers. Another approach focuses on strengthening environmental conditions attached to subsidy payments, thereby linking financial support to sustainable agricultural practices.

Digital technologies may also play an increasingly important role in combating fraud. Satellite monitoring systems and digital land registries allow authorities to verify agricultural activities more accurately, reducing opportunities for false claims. The European Commission has already begun implementing satellite-based monitoring under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), which enables real-time verification of crop cultivation and land use.

Ultimately, reforming the CAP requires addressing not only economic and environmental concerns but also governance challenges related to corruption and transparency.

Conclusions

The relationship between corruption in European institutions and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy reveals deeper structural tensions within the European integration project. CAP represents one of the EU's most important policy instruments, redistributing vast financial resources across member states while shopping rural economies and political dynamics. At the same time, the scale and complexity of this policy create opportunities for corruption, fraud and administrative irregularities. 

Institutional mechanisms such as OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor´s Office have strengthened the EU´s capacity to investigate misconduct, yet recent scandals demonstrate that vulnerabilities remain. Corruption cases involving lobbying, procurement and subsidy allocation have highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability within European governance.

Reforming the CAP therefore cannot be separated from broader institutional reforms aimed at strengthening integrity within the EU. Measures such as subsidy carps, improved land registration systems, digital monitoring technologies and stricter transparency rules could reduce corruption risks while making agricultural support more equitable and environmentally sustainable. 

In a broader sense, the success of these reforms will influence the legitimacy of the EU itself. If the European Union can demonstrate that it is capable of managing large financial programs with transparency and fairness, it will strengthen public trust in supranational governance. Conversely, persistent corruption scandals or ineffective reforms could undermine confidence in European institutions and fuel political skepticism towards the integration project.

The challenge for European policymakers is therefore not simply to reform agricultural policy or combat corruption independently, but to address both issues as part of a comprehensive strategy for strengthening the governance and democratic legitimacy of the EU.

Photo credit: By EU2017EE Estonian Presidency - European Council, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64849041