Evolução ou revolução: avaliação da proposta da Comissão para a PAC 2028-2034 25 Evolution or revolution: assessing the Commission’s CAP 2028-2034 proposal ALAN MATTHEWS Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Ireland 1 Commission, Regulation establishing the European Fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural, fisheries and maritime, prosperity and security for the period 2028-2034 and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509, COM(2025) 565. 2 Commission, Regulation establishing the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the Common Agriculture Policy for the period from 2028 to 2034, COM(2025) 560. 3 Commission, Regulation establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the Union programmes and activities, COM(2025) 545. 4 Commission, Non-paper on adjusting the proposal on the future common agricultural policy and the budget structure, 9 November 2025. Introduction The Commission published its proposal for the next Common Agricultural Policy for the coming programming period 2028-2034 alongside its publication of its proposal for the Multi-annual Financial Framework on 16 July 2025. All the familiar tools in the CAP have been continued, although redesigned in some instances and with important changes. However, the proposal to eliminate the two CAP funding instruments, the EAGF and the EAFRD, and to merge the CAP, along with cohesion, social, fisheries and other shared management programmes in the MFF budget, into a single fund sent shockwaves through the agricultural sector. While a minimum amount of expenditure (€296 billion) on what is now defined as ‘CAP income support’ will be ringfenced within the single fund, the initial reaction of agricultural stakeholders was to treat this as a maximum, and to highlight that it implied a sharp reduction in the resources available to support farmers compared to the current programming period. A further source of concern and frustration was that, in addition to a proposal to further amend the Common Market Organisation Regulation, provisions related to the CAP were fragmented over three separate Regulations: a Regulation establishing the National and Regional Partnership Fund (the NRPF Regulation)1; a specific CAP Regulation2; and a common Expenditure Tracking and Performance Framework Regulation which will apply in future to all EU expenditure.3 This not only makes it difficult to easily follow what the new proposals mean for the CAP. It has also given rise to concern in both the Council and Parliament that the traditional agricultural bodies will no longer have full control over subsidy policy for farmers. In the months following its publication, the focus of the debate on the Commission proposal has been on governance and budget issues. Indeed, a threat by four of the main parliamentary groups that the proposal was not a basis for negotiation led to concessions by the Commission. In a non-paper published in November 2025, the Commission agreed to reinforce spending on rural areas by proposing a rural target (10% of the NRP Plan budget, excluding the ring-fencing amounts for the CAP and fisheries).4 It also agreed to move several articles in the proposed NRPF Regulation that deal with CAP issues to the CAP Regulation “to reinforce the identify and facilitate the reading of the provisions applicable to the CAP”. However, the integrated programming in the NRPF Regulation based on the general and specific objectives, the requirements applying to the NRP Plans, the common set of rules on the governance of the NRP Plan and the assurance framework, would remain. Additional changes were proposed to strengthen the role of the regions and to give Parliament greater oversight over annual budgetary priorities. This article first briefly surveys the governance and budget debates. It then reviews the changes that the Commission
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgxOTE4Nw==