Rural Europe Deserves Recognition Beyond Growth 

Rural areas span most of the EU, but their value goes far beyond economics. MEP Cristina Guarda outlines how Europe can strengthen them via agroecology, a renewed CAP, and the next MFF.

You’re right – rural areas make up over 80% of the EU’s land, yet their value is still too often underestimated. We tend to judge them only by their contribution to growth and competitiveness, ignoring everything that makes them truly sustainable: food systems, water management, biodiversity, renewable energy, natural resources, landscapes, and vibrant community life, including tourism. 

With the new EU budget proposal, we’re hearing that rural areas could benefit from new priorities such as defence investments. But the real question is: are these measures genuinely about rural needs, or are they simply using rural regions to absorb projects that wouldn’t be accepted elsewhere? I’ve seen this logic play out in Italy too – for example, when the government recently cut funding for the National Strategy for Inner Areas, a program designed to support remote and fragile communities. The message was clear: if you are not economically “performing,” you are no longer a political priority. 

The same pattern appears in the energy transition. Most renewable energy projects are developed in rural areas, yet they are often imposed from above, with little local participation or benefit. It’s an extractive logic disguised as a green strategy. We must move beyond the idea that “bigger is always better.” A small farm, like mine, that feeds a community and builds social connections can do more for our collective future than a large, disconnected operation. Yet too often, our policies reward scale rather than impact. As Greens, we are working to reverse this logic and recognise value where it truly exists – in rural areas. 

Empowerment means giving rural and mountain communities the real ability to shape their future – not just to implement decisions made elsewhere. It begins with recognition: these territories are not problems to fix, but places full of potential, with their own solutions and strategies. 

That means ensuring access to basic services such as mobility, education, healthcare, and broadband, while also giving local governments, especially small municipalities, the tools to act. What they don’t need are top-down, extractive tourism projects. 

One great example is the bio-district model, which I worked on as a regional councillor in Italy. Bio-districts bring together farmers, local businesses, citizens, and authorities to manage local resources collectively, with organic farming at their core. They are genuine engines of local innovation. 

We also need to scale up Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), which allows people to set their own priorities. That’s why I’ve been pushing for earmarked funding for CLLD in both the CAP and cohesion policy – it cannot remain an optional “add-on.” Unfortunately, the new proposal to merge rural development and cohesion funds into a single national framework risks creating competition between regions rather than solidarity. This approach often favors large urban projects over rural ones. 

Without agency, there is no ownership. And without ownership, communities lose faith in democracy. If we want to respond to growing discontent and the far-right vote in rural areas, we must make EU policies truly inclusive. That means empowering women and young people, who face barriers to land and decision-making but are also key drivers of innovation and social cohesion. So why are we still not using real gender indicators in the Common Agricultural Policy and in shaping the future of a truly common European agricultural strategy? This is the key question I continue to raise in the AGRI Committee. Unfortunately, the proposal currently on the table does not move in this direction. 

That is profoundly unfair – and, frankly, a great disappointment. I am deeply worried about the future of EU institutions and rural policy, because we risk transforming the Union into little more than a bank account for national governments. That is not a European strategy, and it is certainly not the vision rural Europe deserves. 

We’re entering a crucial moment for the future of the CAP. It urgently needs reform to address inequality in how support is distributed and to align funding with environmental and social goals. 

We need a CAP that truly supports smaller, mixed farms through better-targeted payments, stronger social conditionality, and rewards for public goods such as biodiversity, animal welfare, and soil health – not simply for owning more hectares. We must move beyond a compensatory approach and make sustainable choices economically viable. 

Currently, there’s no obligation to dedicate a share of CAP funding to agri-environmental measures. These depend on member state co-financing, which risks a “race to the bottom” in ambition. 

Regarding livestock farming, the debate is often emotionally charged. As a vegetarian and someone close to the animal sanctuary movement, I understand the complexity. But abolishing all animal farming is not a viable or just strategy – especially in regions where livestock plays an important role in maintaining landscapes and local economies. The real issue is industrial intensification. We must support extensive and diversified farming models that are environmentally and ethically responsible. 

Absolutely. Agroecology is not just a set of farming techniques – it’s a framework for social and ecological transformation. It builds food systems that work with nature, support local communities, and protect ecosystems. 

However, there’s still a misconception that agroecology is only suitable for marginal or remote areas. That’s completely wrong. Agroecology is scalable and relevant everywhere, from mountain villages to intensive agricultural plains. We must stop dividing agriculture into a “green fringe” and a “productive core.” Sustainable farming should be the norm, not the exception. 

To make agroecology thrive, we need investment in training, infrastructure, research, and value chains – especially where industrial farming has become dominant. It’s not a romantic ideal; it’s a realistic, science-backed pathway for the future. 

Yes, absolutely. Projects like CIRAWA are essential. But we need more coordinated, EU-wide efforts to support agroecological practices and strengthen the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Farmers need access to independent advice, peer learning, and context-specific solutions. 

Unfortunately, the current CAP reform risks weakening AKIS by removing it from ring-fenced funding. This sends the wrong message, knowledge systems are not secondary; they are the backbone of any real transition. 

Farmers interested in agroecology are often left without guidance or dependent on advice from input suppliers. We must change that by supporting independent, farmer-led innovation and ensuring that research and training reflect real needs on the ground. EU innovation programs like Horizon should also be opened up to smaller, community-based projects rather than just large institutions. 

We have serious concerns. The current proposal risks renationalising EU policies, merging funds, and cutting budgets. Merging CAP rural development funding with cohesion policy into a single national envelope may sound efficient, but in reality, it dilutes both missions. We could end up with neither effective rural development nor meaningful territorial cohesion. 

Rural development must remain a pillar of the CAP, while cohesion policy should connect to it, not merge with it. We need dedicated envelopes for rural investments in services, mobility, and digital infrastructure. Today, we don’t even know how much cohesion funding reaches rural areas, because so much depends on national discretion. 

Delegating everything to member states is not solidarity, it’s abdication. These are deeply political decisions that will shape the EU’s future. The Commission cannot simply wash its hands of responsibility. Europe’s strength lies in shared vision, not fragmented national interests.