The European Commission published a 119-page study in May 2026 on how EU farmers are coping with climate change, regulatory pressure, and demographic decline. The headline number is buried on page 35: of 91 distinct adaptations recorded across 15 farms in 11 Member States, 56% are "efficiency" measures (small tweaks to existing systems), 24% are "substitution" (replacing one practice with a more resilient one), and just 20% are "redesign" (genuine structural change). The pattern repeats across every pressure the study examined.
That matters because the Commission's own framing has shifted. Adaptation is no longer treated as optional in EU agricultural policy. It is increasingly a precondition for farm viability under the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy. The study, prepared by the French consultancy Oréade-Brèche under contract AGRI-2023-0329, makes the gap between policy direction and farm-level reality concrete.
What the study covered
Fifteen case studies were selected across 11 Member States and seven agricultural sectors. Each case study paired a sector with a region and a specific pressure: cereals in Romania facing extreme heat and drought, maize in Nouvelle-Aquitaine facing drought, horticulture in Andalusia facing heatwaves and water scarcity, sheep and goats in Western Greece facing heatwave intensification, dairy in Slovakia and Poland facing labour and climate stress, vineyards in Veneto and Occitanie facing water scarcity, pig farming in Denmark and the Netherlands facing animal welfare regulation, and so on.
The drivers under examination were climate change, regulatory framework change (CAP, plant protection products, nitrates, animal welfare, GHG targets), and demographic shifts (labour shortage and generational renewal).
The methodology is qualitative. Case studies cannot be generalised to all EU farms, and the report says so directly. They are presented as illustrations of the EU context, supported by FADN economic data, Eurostat statistics, and EEA climate data for context.
The three types of adaptation, and which one dominates
The study uses Hill and MacRae's 1996 framework for sorting farm-level adaptations:
- Efficiency. Keep the existing system but tighten it. Better irrigation, modern barn climate control, decision-support tools, variable-rate fertilisation. 51 of 91 observed adaptations.
- Substitution. Replace one practice or variety with a more climate-tolerant one. Heat-resistant cultivars, drought-tolerant rootstocks, alternative crop species. 22 of 91 adaptations.
- Redesign. Change the underlying system. Switching production type, restructuring vineyards, changing rotations, shifting from goat-and-sheep to sheep-only operations. 18 of 91 adaptations.
The breakdown by driver is revealing. For climate-change adaptations, the split is roughly 45% efficiency, 45% substitution, and 10% redesign. Demographic pressure produces the most redesign (45%), because labour scarcity often forces farms to either restructure or exit. Regulatory pressure is split between efficiency and redesign at roughly 41% each.
The Commission's own interpretation: adaptation measures "are often limited to optimisation or substitution of practices, without leading to deep structural changes."
How Mediterranean farms are responding
For Mediterranean cases, the pattern is consistent. Efficiency adaptations dominate the visible work. More efficient drip irrigation. On-farm water storage. Improved livestock housing climate management. Decision-support tools for irrigation timing. Varietal substitution for heat tolerance, often with industry-led breeding work cited in 8 of the 15 case studies.
In the Andalusian horticulture case study, some farmers are considering abandoning horticulture altogether because of water scarcity. In Roussillon (Occitanie), a vineyard farmer interviewed for the study described his strategy in plain terms: drastically reduced production costs, halted investment, focusing on what works today. An inter-ministerial mission in Occitanie expects agricultural land use to fall by at least 10% in the region over the coming years.
Redesign work is rarer, but it exists. Vineyard restructuring with different cultivars and densities. Transition from mixed goat-and-sheep to sheep-only systems in response to combined market and climate pressure. Abandonment of orchards in Polish regions where investment costs exceed expected returns, with the land kept as a capital asset rather than productive farmland.
The Greek case in detail
The Greek case study (coded CS_EL in the report) is on extensive sheep and goat livestock in Western Greece (Dytiki Ellada), with heatwave intensification as the main analysed pressure. Several findings stand out.
Dairy production in the region is being hit on multiple fronts simultaneously: water scarcity for irrigated feed crops like corn silage and fodder, drinking water shortage for animals, cleaning water for cheese factories. Animal feed and fertiliser prices rose roughly 25% during the study period. Heat stress on animals directly reduces milk yields. Stakeholders in a comparable Slovak dairy case study reported a 25% drop in milk production during summer months.
Policy support exists but is fragmented. The regional climate change adaptation plan for Dytiki Ellada mobilises ERDF, LIFE, and EAFRD funds. The Regional Programme Dytiki Ellada (2021-2027) supplements CAP measures with targeted support for dairy and cheese industries and feed enterprises, with training for vulnerable groups, the unemployed, and women.
One specific gap flagged by the Greek case study deserves attention. Animal welfare regulation in Greece does not require the Temperature-Humidity Index (THI), the standard indicator of heat stress in livestock facilities. This means heat-stress mitigation in barns and milking parlours has no measurable compliance baseline, even for semi-intensive and intensive holdings. The study lists this under "incomplete measures" in the Greek case.
The broader Greek pattern matches what stakeholders described elsewhere in Mediterranean cases: low trust in advisory services, limited financial capacity to invest in adaptation, and a sense of being trapped between rising climate pressure and slow policy response.
Why redesign is rare
The study lays out several mechanisms.
Financial fragility. Many farms operate on tight margins and cannot fund investment in new systems. In Latvia, "doing nothing was one of the strategies." In Poland, "it is more likely that farmers will cease production entirely rather than modify their production strategies due to the high costs associated with changing production types."
Uncertainty and loss of control. Stakeholders across multiple case studies described feelings of anxiety, resignation, and anger. The 2024 EU-wide farm protests are flagged in the study as a symptom of this. The protests were initiated by diverse country-specific issues, but converged around dissatisfaction with the direction of CAP reform and the European Green Deal's agricultural elements.
No long-term, integrated vision. Most CAP support is designed for income stabilisation and environmental compliance, not for structural transformation. The study finds the sector "may still be lacking a long-term, integrated vision to promote coherent strategies for achieving its goals." Farmers are left without a clear reference point for what their farm should look like in 10 or 15 years.
Input cost shocks crowd out adaptation investment. The Greek 25% rise in feed and fertiliser costs is one example. When farms are coping with input cost spikes, they cannot also fund restructuring.
What the Commission proposes
The study makes three structural recommendations to the post-2027 CAP design process.
Agricultural Resilience Areas (ARAs). Scale the French regional model to the EU level, with fine-grained regional analysis and shared governance involving farmers, local authorities, researchers, and businesses. ARAs would let CAP support be modulated by territorial vulnerability rather than applied uniformly.
Territorial Action Plans (TAPs). Bottom-up plans designed at the regional level, with regional authorities and civil society co-developing strategies aligned with EU and national frameworks. The reference example is the Néo Terra programme in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, which conditions funding on ambitious regional objectives.
Broader vulnerability criteria. Move beyond climate-risk-only definitions to include economic, social, and structural criteria. This would mean modulating direct CAP payments for areas where the intensity of challenges is highest, and introducing additional installation grants for young farmers in vulnerable areas, tied to sustainable practices.
The study also calls for a dedicated drought management fund, regional pilot programmes based on the Living Labs concept, and stronger advisory capacity to bridge the gap between research and farm-level decisions.
What this means for individual farms
The most actionable signal in the study is also the least comfortable. Incremental adaptation is already on the policy radar as insufficient. Future CAP support is likely to be weighted toward farms that can show genuine system changes, not just efficiency upgrades on existing operations. The eco-schemes architecture of the current CAP 2023-2027 gives some indication of where the funding emphasis is moving.
For Mediterranean farms specifically, the structural pressures the study identifies (aridification, heat-stress, water scarcity, depleted soils) are not going away. The realistic options are well documented. Agroforestry systems can improve water availability and protect crops from heat stress in Mediterranean conditions. Varietal substitution toward heat-tolerant cultivars is underway in 8 of the 15 case studies. Redesign at farm level usually means reduced production, changed mix, or partial exit, and the financial support to make those changes coherent is the gap the Commission is now trying to close.
The study's overall conclusion is direct. EU agriculture is not failing to recognise climate change. It is failing to act on it at the depth and pace required. The next CAP cycle will determine whether the policy framework catches up.
References
- Oréade-Brèche. (2025). Changing agricultural and farming systems, final report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. DOI: 10.2762/5735340.
- Oréade-Brèche. (2025). Changing agricultural and farming systems, executive summary. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development.
- European Commission. (2026). Strengthening EU farming resilience, study confirms key adaptation pathways. DG Agriculture and Rural Development, 20 May 2026.
- European Commission. (n.d.). Changing agricultural and farming systems, study landing page. DG Agriculture and Rural Development.
- Hill, S. and MacRae, R. J. (1996). Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 7(1), 81-87.
