Is Brussels Yielding to Pressure on Common Agricultural Policy? 

It seems the European Commission is starting to back down. After weeks of political and regional pressure, Commissioner for Cohesion and Reforms Raffaele Fitto acknowledged on Thursday, October 16th,  that Brussels is willing to modify its proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028–2034, particularly concerning the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and cohesion funds.

“We are open to improving that part of the proposal,” said Fitto, a member of Fratelli d’Italia party (ECR), after listing the legal provisions outlining the participation of local authorities in the allocation of EU funds.

The admission came after mounting criticism of the plan to merge agricultural and regional subsidies into a single €865 billion fund, to be managed through national plans negotiated between EU capitals and Brussels. Regions and farmers have warned that the reform would amount to a “de facto renationalisation” of EU policy, transferring decision-making power from local authorities to national governments.

Fitto’s message was aimed not only at local and regional representatives but also at the European Parliament, which has become increasingly critical of the Commission. The European People’s Party (EPP), the largest group in the Parliament, formally threatened to reject the budget unless Brussels introduces changes before November.

The EPP’s sudden change of tone is striking. The group now threatening to ‘rebel’ against the Commission was one of the main promoters of the same centralized, technocratic model it now claims to want to reform. During the previous legislative term, the EPP supported the creation of financial instruments that concentrated the management of EU funds in Brussels, at the expense of national and regional autonomy.

This time, however, the EPP is trying to reposition itself as a defender of farmers and rural communities, pressured by electoral fatigue and the rise of conservative forces in several member states. Yet divisions within the group persist: while delegations from Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania are calling for a thorough revision of the MFF, the German delegation (CDU/CSU) prefers to give the Commission more time and adopt a gradual approach. 

Fitto’s openness does not seem to stem from political conviction but rather from institutional pressure. Brussels has realised that the current design of the budget is politically untenable.