This briefing evaluates whether the Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2028–2034 are fit to drive the scale of environmental and climate action Europe now needs. Despite some positive steps, the proposed framework could ultimately undermine environmental ambition if key weaknesses in funding, governance and performance monitoring remain unresolved.
The European Commission’s proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2028–2034 represent a fundamental shift in the way EU agricultural funding is structured, governed and delivered. Embedded within the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), the future CAP will play a central role in shaping the sustainability, resilience and competitiveness of Europe’s agri-food system over the next decade.
At a time of accelerating climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress and soil degradation, the environmental ambition of the next CAP is critical. Agriculture remains both highly dependent on healthy ecosystems and a major driver of environmental pressures. The policy choices made now will determine whether the CAP becomes a catalyst for systemic transformation or risks entrenching existing unsustainable practices.
Building on IEEP’s initial review, this briefing examines three key issues that will determine whether the next CAP accelerates or hinders progress toward the EU’s climate, biodiversity, soil and water objectives:
- The removal of ringfencing for environmental, climate and animal welfare funding, and whether the proposed expenditure tracking methodology can compensate for this loss or risks significantly overstating green spending.
- The introduction of a new payment for transition, evaluating its potential to drive meaningful system change and the conditions required for it to deliver measurable and lasting sustainability gains.
- The revised governance and performance framework, including changes to planning, approval, monitoring and evaluation processes that could shape the level of environmental ambition at both EU and Member State levels.
The analysis identifies a significant risk of a dilution of environmental and climate ambition under the proposed CAP/MFF framework. In particular, the removal of mandatory ringfencing, weakening of environmental conditionality, and major shortcomings in the proposed tracking and performance systems could reduce Member States’ incentives to prioritise public goods provision in agriculture. These changes also risk exacerbating disparities between Member States, undermining the EUfencing, weakening of environmental conditionality, and major shortcomings in the proposed tracking and performance systems could reduce Member States’ incentives to prioritise public goods. These changes also risk exacerbating disparities between Member States, undermining the EUwide level playing field.
At the same time, the proposals offer important opportunities. The new transition support payment, if provided with clear objectives, sound governance, and adequate funding, could become a much needed driver of needed driver of farmlevel system change, supporting moves toward more resilient, low input and input and naturepositive production systems.
The briefing concludes with a set of concrete recommendations, including:
- Reinstating a robust environmental, climate and animal welfare ringfence within the CAP budget, focused on intervention fields with clear environmental objectives;
- Improving the credibility and transparency of the expenditure tracking tracking methodology, including revising tracking coefficients and reporting rules;
- Clarifying the purpose, scope and safeguards of transition support, ensuring it drives verifiable system change and delivers long-termterm public benefits;
- Strengthening governance, oversight and performance monitoring, including reinstating impact indicators, reinforcing Commission powers during plan assessment, and ensuring coherence with all relevant environmental legislation.
