European Parliament Defends CAP and Cohesion Policy in MFF Negotiations

On 28 April 2026, the European Parliament adopted its position on the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034, calling for a more ambitious long-term budget while reaffirming the importance of traditional EU policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Cohesion Policy. Parliament strongly opposed proposals that could weaken or merge dedicated funding streams for agriculture, rural development and regional development, arguing that these policies remain essential for territorial cohesion, food security, economic convergence and the vitality of rural areas across Europe.

MEPs stressed that new priorities such as competitiveness, defence and security should not come at the expense of CAP or cohesion funding. The Parliament’s position also rejects the renationalisation of these policies and calls for maintaining dedicated budget envelopes that ensure a balanced development of all European regions. The adopted resolution now forms the basis for negotiations with Member States on the EU’s future budget framework.

The Parliament’s stance reflects growing concerns among policymakers and stakeholders that rural and regional development must remain at the heart of the European project, particularly as Europe faces increasing economic, environmental and geopolitical challenges.

Parliament’s budget proposal

The Parliament’s position is more about the overall size of the EU budget and protecting dedicated funding envelopes than about setting final CAP and cohesion amounts. The exact allocations will be negotiated later, but Parliament has made several important budgetary proposals:

• It wants the next MFF to be set at 1.27% of EU Gross National Income (GNI), compared to the Commission’s proposal of around 1.16–1.26% of GNI, depending on how debt repayments are counted. This would bring the total budget to just over €2 trillion in current prices.
• Parliament proposes an increase of approximately €197 billion above the Commission proposal. This additional funding would be distributed across major policy headings, including agriculture, cohesion, competitiveness, external action and administration.
• Crucially for CAP and rural development, Parliament rejects the Commission’s idea of folding agricultural and cohesion funding into broader national plans. Instead, it insists on separate and protected budget envelopes for:
  • the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),
  • Rural Development,
  • Cohesion Policy, and
  • regional development instruments.
• Parliament argues that funding for agriculture and regional development should be maintained at least at a level that preserves their purchasing power and should not be reduced to finance new priorities such as defence or competitiveness.

For forestry, rural areas and land managers, the key political message is that Parliament is defending the idea that CAP and cohesion policy remain core EU policies with dedicated budgets, rather than becoming smaller components of a larger, more flexible fund controlled through national plans. The Parliament’s negotiating position is therefore considerably more favourable to agriculture, rural development and regional investment than the Commission’s original proposal.