The European Commission has over the past week unveiled its new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034, laying the financial foundations for the EU’s priorities in the years ahead. But while Brussels celebrates a streamlined, simplified budget, environmental advocates and farmers alike are raising the alarm. The proposal marks a serious shift away from green ambitions — gutting dedicated nature funding and reshaping agricultural policy in ways that could mean farmers are receiving less financial support.
A bigger budget, but less funding for farmers and Nature
The EU’s new MFF proposes a record-breaking €2 trillion in spending. Yet despite this expanded budget, nature conservation is being squeezed out. One of the most striking changes is the absorption of the LIFE programme — the EU’s flagship environmental funding tool — into the new European Competitiveness Fund, a mechanism primarily focused on industrial policy. The overall direction of the budget prioritises security, defence, competitiveness, migration management, and digital transformation, while the green transition and nature restoration have been notably downgraded compared to the 2021–2027 MFF.
In a change in governance, the Commission is granting itself full discretion over how and to what extent environmental objectives are pursued. This centralisation not only sidelines the European Parliament but also undermines thousands of NGOs, local governments, and community organisations that depend on stable, predictable EU funding for farming and environmental action.
“By dismantling and merging the targeted, dedicated and successful funding provided by the current LIFE programme into the two big pillars of the new MFF,” Tycho Vandermaesen, Policy and Strategy Director at the WWF European Policy Office, “which are expected to deliver on a laundry list of objectives with no clear prioritisation, the Commission risks defunding vital nature and climate action.”
CAP cutbacks: ring-fenced and reduced
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which for decades has underpinned EU support for farmers and rural development, will undergo its most radical transformation since its inception. Under the new budget:
- CAP funding will be slashed from €386 billion to €300 billion (nearly 30% in real terms).
- The two-pillar structure (direct payments and rural development) will be abolished.
- CAP will be merged into a mega-fund alongside cohesion and rural development funding, to be managed at national level.
While the total size of the agricultural budget will shrink, funds for agriculture will be “ring-fenced” and protected. “No other policy area has this level of protection,” Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen told MEPs. “This guarantees stability and predictability for farmers.”
The Commission insists that direct payments to farmers are safeguarded, but environmental incentives like eco-schemes will now be merged into broader, voluntary measures requiring national co-financing. The mandatory green conditions (GAECs) are gone — member states will define their own minimum sustainable practices.
The “Common” in CAP also appears to be undermined with the EU setting fewer common rules and member states gaining autonomy in how funds are spent. While this may reduce bureaucracy and give states more flexibility, it risks fragmenting what was once a unified policy and weakening collective ambition on sustainability.
Spain’s Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Luis Planas, welcomed the proposed changes earlier in the year, describing it as an “important step forward” that addresses long-standing demands from Member States for less red tape and simpler rules.
But not all voices were as supportive. MEP Herbert Dorfmann, a member of the European People’s Party — the same political family as Commission President von der Leyen and Agriculture Commissioner Hansen — responded bluntly: “You’re doubling the MFF, but we’re getting a 25% cut to the CAP. Don’t try and sell that to us as a success story.”
The European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA) warns that “removing CAP’s rural development pillar weakens the EU’s ability to meet its climate, biodiversity, and soil restoration targets,” undercutting the long-term support regenerative agriculture needs to thrive—from transition planning and knowledge sharing to soil monitoring and landscape-level cooperation.
What does this mean for the future of our landscapes in Europe?
While the EU’s new budget may offer streamlined governance and greater flexibility for Member States, this comes at a significant cost to environmental ambition. By sidelining dedicated nature funding and weakening common environmental standards, Europe undermines the health of the very landscapes that support its long-term social, economic, and climate resilience.
The European Commission’s own Joint Research Centre found that between 19% and 36% of the EU’s gross value added is highly dependent on ecosystem services — a stark reminder of how deeply Europe’s economy and wellbeing are tied to healthy landscapes. Ensuring that Europe’s landscapes can continue to provide clean water, healthy soils, climate regulation, and biodiversity requires coordinated investment in restoration and conservation, which the new budget does not appear to offer.
This begs the question: If public funding for nature continues to retreat, could private finance tools like nature credits fill the gap?
The EU’s newly released Nature Credits Roadmap suggests growing confidence from the EU Commission in these market-based mechanisms. But these private tools are no silver bullet. While they may play a role in supplementing investment, they cannot replace the scale, equity, or public accountability of robust public funding. When governments step back, private finance alone cannot deliver what the climate and biodiversity crises demand.
The choice ahead is stark: will the EU continue to support farmers while leading on nature and climate, or prioritise short-term flexibility at the cost of long-term resilience? Without a course correction, the consequences may soon become clear — and difficult to reverse.