In a written answer to a parliamentary question from MEP Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left), Commissioner Hansen outlined the Commission's approach to ensuring predictability, fair distribution and transparency in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2028-2034, addressing concerns raised by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The answer signals the Commission's intention to maintain a ring-fenced minimum budget within national plans, introduce degressivity and capping of income support, and strengthen environmental requirements, while also enhancing the role of the European Parliament and transparency through a new performance regulation and a centralised website.
The question, submitted on 16 February 2026, cited an ECA opinion warning that structuring the CAP around Member States' national strategic plans could slow aid payments, reduce predictability, and increase uncertainty for beneficiaries, potentially undermining fair income, environmental protection and food safety. The ECA also flagged risks of delays and unequal resource allocation.
Concrete proposals and ambition level
Hansen's answer contains several concrete proposals: a minimum ring-fenced amount within national and regional partnership (NRP) plans, degressivity and capping of income support to focus on farmers most in need, and a minimum spending target of at least 43% for environmental objectives at the overall NRP level. Member States would be required to address soil and water quality through protective practices as basic requirements for income support. The Commission would issue CAP national recommendations to ensure a level playing field across all policy objectives.
However, the answer remains largely declarative on key points: it does not specify numerical targets for degressivity or capping, nor does it detail how the ring-fenced amount will be calculated. The commitment to 'improving the current CAP toolbox' is vague, and the answer does not address the ECA's concern about delays in establishing aid payments or the risk of unequal distribution between Member States.
Institutional follow-up and Parliament's role
Hansen noted that the European Parliament, as co-legislator, will play a fundamental role in shaping the future regulations. He referenced a November 2025 suggestion by the Commission President to add a new annex on a budgetary steering mechanism to the interinstitutional agreement, specifying modalities including Parliament's role. Transparency is to be strengthened via a proposed performance regulation and a publicly accessible 'Single Gateway' website.
Policy orientation and cleavages
The answer reflects a moderate shift towards re-centralisation and stronger EU-level steering, pulling against the current trend of national flexibility. Key trade-offs include: increasing EU oversight vs. national sovereignty in CAP implementation; strengthening environmental ambition (43% spending target) vs. potential administrative burden for farmers; and improving transparency and Parliament's role vs. maintaining efficiency in decision-making. The degressivity and capping proposal targets fairer distribution but may face resistance from larger farm businesses and Member States with concentrated land ownership.
Stakeholders most impacted include: EU farmers (especially smaller ones who may benefit from capping, but also those facing new environmental conditions), national authorities (who must implement NRP plans and recommendations), EU taxpayers (funding the CAP budget), and agri-food businesses (affected by changes in support distribution and environmental requirements).