MEPs Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR) and Maria Walsh (EPP) clashed with the European Commission over the Horizon Europe 2028–2034 budget allocation, calling for a ringfenced €31.5 billion dedicated to agriculture, food security, and the bioeconomy. Ruissen and Walsh advocated for strategic budget protection to preserve continuity and visibility for agricultural research, supported by Tomáš Kubín (PfE) who emphasized predictability and better governance. In contrast, the Commission rejected strict earmarking, citing the need for flexible budget management.
Meanwhile, Anna Strolenberg (Greens/EFA) agreed on budget protection but preferred it to exclude broader bioeconomy elements, focusing narrowly on food and agriculture. The debate highlighted cleavages between increasing vs. decreasing EU budget rigidity, and sectoral inclusion vs. exclusion within the Horizon framework.
This exchange took place during a 28 January 2026 meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI). The Commission additionally presented the preliminary assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) delivery model and Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs) implementation in national strategic plans for CAP 2023–2027.
Concrete proposals emerged on both fronts. Ruissen proposed ringfencing a clear budget share (18% of Horizon’s €175 billion) for agriculture and called for active farmer involvement in research with proper compensation—a plan signaling an increase in EU agricultural funding and institutional roles. Maria Walsh backed a distinct budget line to prevent dilution of agricultural funds. Conversely, the Commission offered more flexible annual prioritization without micro-level ringfencing, reflecting a preference for adaptability over strict earmarking.
Regarding CAP, several MEPs including Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) and Christine Singer (Renew) criticized the delivery model's increased administrative complexity and dilution of regional roles, dipping into a cleavage over centralization versus decentralization in policy execution. The Commission acknowledged excessive burdens partly caused by Member States’ over-implementation but pledged simplification efforts.
On environmental measures, Maria Noichl (S&D) questioned removing co-financing from eco-schemes despite high uptake, while the Commission defended bundling measures for flexibility, promising to maintain ambition. Thomas Waitz (Greens/EFA) underscored eco-schemes’ economic benefits through input cost reduction.
EU agricultural researchers and farmers stand to gain or lose depending on budget ringfencing and inclusiveness of funding; SMEs could benefit from better access if administrative hurdles decrease or face setbacks if complexity endures. National authorities grapple with balancing EU rules and regional specifics, especially under the debated CAP delivery model. Environmental NGOs focus on retaining or enhancing eco-schemes’ scope and financing.
Looking ahead, the Parliament’s opinions and Commission’s promises of improved monitoring and local adaptation could steer Horizon Europe and CAP reforms toward greater stability and accessibility, but tensions remain between EU-level strategic budget control and needed flexibility to respond to diverse national agricultural contexts.