CAP 2028-2034: Diversification on the table, ambition under pressure

The European Commission has published its long-awaited proposals for the 2028-2034 Common Agricultural Policy, setting the tone for what could be one of the most consequential agricultural reform cycles in decades.

An in-depth analysis by the European Vegetarian Union has concluded that while the draft opens meaningful opportunities for protein diversification and plant-based production, it also risks diluting environmental ambition and fragmenting the CAP’s common framework.

• The European Commission has proposed merging the CAP into a broader National and Regional Partnership Fund for 2028-2034, reshaping governance and budget structures across EU agricultural policy.

• The proposals have introduced new diversification and transition tools, including increased coupled income support for protein crops and the creation of a dedicated protein sector under the CMO.

• Environmental ring-fencing and standalone eco-schemes have been removed, raising concerns about reduced climate ambition, renationalisation, and uneven implementation across Member States.

The July 17 2025 publication marked a structural shift in EU farm policy, with the Commission proposing to regroup the CAP alongside other funding streams into a new National and Regional Partnership Fund, or NRP. This redesign has triggered immediate debate across Brussels, not least because it alters both the CAP’s traditional two-pillar structure and its long-standing budgetary architecture.

From a diversification standpoint, the EVU analysis identified several promising elements. Among them are new voluntary agri-environmental and climate actions that explicitly mention diversification support for farmers in nitrate-surplus areas. Crucially, while farmers would choose whether to participate, Member States would be required to offer such schemes, potentially creating a more consistent baseline for diversification initiatives across the bloc.

The Commission has also proposed expanding coupled income support. Under the current CAP, the majority of coupled income support has favored livestock production, with a far smaller share allocated to protein crops. The new draft would raise the ceiling for coupled income support to 20% of direct payments, with an additional 5% earmarked for protein crops.

The proposal would also shift coupled income support from a voluntary instrument to a mandatory one, replacing 'may' with 'shall' in the regulatory language. If maintained through negotiations, this change could significantly rebalance financial incentives toward crops such as beans, lentils, peas, and chickpeas.

Another structural development is the proposed creation of a dedicated protein sector under the Common Market Organisation. The EVU has endorsed this move, calling it a crucial step for building processing, marketing, and promotion structures for protein crops intended for human consumption. The organization has urged co-legislators and Member States to support recognition of producer organisations within this sector to strengthen European value chains.

Investment support mechanisms have also featured prominently in the analysis. Diversification often requires significant capital expenditure, particularly for farmers transitioning into plant-based production. Under the NRP proposal, investment support per farm would be capped at €300,000. The EVU has argued that diversification investments inherently contribute to agricultural resilience and should therefore receive prioritised access to support.

Despite these opportunities, the analysis has raised substantial concerns about environmental ambition. Under the current CAP, a significant share of direct payments and rural development spending has been ring-fenced for eco-schemes and agri-environment-climate measures. The new proposals remove this environmental ring-fencing entirely.

In addition, standalone eco-schemes would disappear, merged into broader agri-environmental and climate actions that require national co-financing. The Commission has proposed a minimum national contribution of 30%, a shift that could make Member States more cautious about maintaining ambitious schemes at scale.

The conditionality framework, rebranded as 'farm stewardship', has also drawn criticism. Observers have characterized the new setup as less demanding in environmental terms, with greater flexibility granted to Member States in defining protective practices and deciding whether farmers should be compensated for mandatory requirements.

Budget governance represents another flashpoint. The EVU analysis warned that the disappearance of the CAP’s traditional second pillar and the loss of a dedicated rural development fund could undermine sustainability and diversification efforts. Multi-year interventions, which provide predictability for farmers considering new production models, could become less stable under the revised structure.

More broadly, critics have questioned whether the proposals move the CAP further toward renationalisation. By granting Member States increased budgetary flexibility within the NRP framework and allowing greater discretion in defining conditionality rules, the draft could result in uneven funding levels and competitive distortions across the single market.

At the strategic level, the EVU has called for protein diversification to be explicitly integrated into the CAP’s objectives, Commission recommendations, and performance monitoring. It has also recommended that diversification be included as a criterion in mid-term reviews of national plans.

The Commission’s proposals have been presented as a framework capable of strengthening resilience, food security, and generational renewal. According to the EVU’s conclusion, the draft contains the building blocks to de-risk production shifts, strengthen value chains, and contribute meaningfully to food security and environmental sustainability.

However, as currently drafted, the organization has cautioned that weakened environmental safeguards, the absence of clear EU-level diversification objectives, and increased budget uncertainty could undermine those ambitions.

Negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission will now determine whether protein diversification becomes embedded as a central pillar of EU farm policy or remains unevenly implemented across Member States.

For Europe’s protein transition, the direction of travel may already be visible. Whether it accelerates or stalls will depend on how firmly diversification, funding stability, and environmental ambition are anchored in the final text.