The future of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Cohesion Policy are jeopardized by the plans put forth by the European Commission in its proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, covering the period 2028-2034. This perspective is gaining momentum within the European Parliament, where it is generating significant tensions within political groups, starting with the largest, the European People’s Party Group.

The European Commission proposes a budget structured around 27 national and regional plans, which would consolidate funding from the Common Agricultural Policy, Cohesion Policy, Fisheries Policy, and the Social Pillar budget into a single national fund. The disbursement of these funds would be conditional upon the implementation of reforms, mirroring the spirit of the current Recovery and Resilience Facility.

The proposed dissolution of the distinct identity of the Common Agricultural Policy, with its two pillars, direct payments and rural development, is unacceptable. European farmers are rightly dissatisfied and prepared to launch protests.

The relocation of Cohesion Policy decision-making from regions to national capitals is also unacceptable, as it runs counter to both the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of a Europe of the Regions.

We, in the European Parliament, foresee three primary issues arising from the proposal of the Commission.

In the first place, the problem concerning the governance of the European budget, as the EC is essentially renationalizing the European budget to the detriment of farmers and regions. This concern is being vocally expressed by members of both the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions.

The second issue is a lack of predictability. When national governments alone control the fate of funding, which is also tied to reforms that may or may not be implemented on time, farmers, mayors, and local communities will be drawn into an unhealthy and unprincipled competition for funds that ultimately depend not on pre-allocated program appropriations, but on the goodwill of the central government.

Finally, we observe a problem concerning a lack of transparency, given that the governments of the 27 Member States will be overseeing a process structured as “funding-for-reforms”. This danger is not merely theoretical; it will certainly be encountered in all Member States, causing a democratic deficit due to the absence of parliamentary scrutiny over the entire process.

The tensions in the European Parliament regarding the future of the Multiannual European Budget are at an all-time high. I am confident that we will succeed in forming a sufficiently strong coalition within the Parliament to compel the Commission to revise its proposal and safeguard the rights, interests, and funding intended for European farmers, as well as for the local communities and regions of the European Union.