Diverging views clashed during the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) workshop on 9 April 2026, centered on the governance and budget structure of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2028-2034, specifically the tension between maintaining a unified EU agricultural policy versus increased national flexibility. On one side, speakers like Tomáš Kubín (PfE), Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR), Charles Goerens (Renew), and Gilles Pennelle (PfE) expressed concern that the proposal would effectively lead to renationalisation, risking fragmentation of the CAP and weakening the level playing field among Member States. Conversely, figures such as Gijs Schilthuis (DG AGRI), Elsa Régnier (IDDRI), and Alan Matthews (Trinity College Dublin) argued that the proposal retains the common policy’s core characteristics via ring-fenced funding and mandatory interventions while allowing for necessary flexibility, provided there are stronger safeguards and performance monitoring.
The workshop, convened within the European Parliament’s AGRI Committee, scrutinized the Commission’s post-2027 CAP proposals amidst pressures from overlapping initiatives, budget constraints, and calls for simplification. Debate coverage focused on flexibility, budget arrangements, administrative complexity, and safeguarding the CAP’s common character.
Concrete proposals emerged amid this debate. Elsa Régnier introduced a €900 million EU-level annual crisis safety net targeting market and sanitary shocks, although she criticizes the approach for emphasizing crisis response over prevention. Alan Matthews proposed narrowing ring-fencing to essential rural programs such as LEADER and enhancing national recommendations and evaluation mechanisms to sustain CAP unity, challenging fears of excessive renationalisation. Gijs Schilthuis detailed mechanisms including mandatory income support ranges, capping rules, farm stewardship requirements, and continuation of Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) which aim to maintain regulatory cohesion.
In contrast, several MEPs such as Valérie Deloge (PfE), Céline Imart (EPP), and Christine Singer (Renew) gave more critical assessments, highlighting increased complexity and reduced transparency under the plan without prescribing specific numeric or institutional alternatives. The proposals, while promising flexibility, raised concerns about increased national disparities in funding that might affect farmers unevenly across the EU, potentially distorting competition, as noted by Bert-Jan Ruissen and Jessika Van Leeuwen (both ECR).
The cleavages map onto traditional conflicts between protecting a unified EU-level policy framework versus devolving greater discretion to Member States; concerns about administrative complexity versus the need for simplification; and balancing targeted ring-fencing of funds versus performance-driven flexibility. From a stakeholder perspective, national agricultural authorities and farmers could face greater administrative burdens and varying support depending on their country’s priorities, whereas EU regulatory bodies must manage complex oversight while preserving policy coherence. Consumers and rural communities have an interest in maintaining food security and sustainable rural development, which the debate recognized as core objectives.
Looking forward, the debate implies that further scrutiny and impact assessments by the European Parliament, Commission, and Member States are likely before final decisions, including simulations of national implementations and broader consultations. The emphasis on safeguarding CAP’s common goals within newly flexible structures indicates that future policy-making will hinge on balancing national discretion with effective EU-level coordination and transparency mechanisms.