On 14 July, three European Parliament committees (Agriculture, Budgets and Regional Development) met jointly to discuss one of the biggest and most contested files of the next EU budget round: the proposal to merge farming, rural development, regional and fisheries funding into a single instrument for 2028–2034, delivered through so-called National and Regional Partnership Plans.

The proposal has drawn more than 6.000 amendments since the draft report was presented on 2 June. Co-rapporteur Karlo Ressler MEP noted that the file will shape almost half of the next EU budget, making it one of the most politically sensitive of the entire package.

Much of the debate was about the basic design. MEPs from across the political spectrum insisted that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the EU’s farm policy, must not simply disappear into one big fund. Ideas ranged from giving the CAP its own pillar with separate rules, governance and budget, to a dedicated CAP chapter, to taking agriculture out of the regulation entirely. The shared concern was simple: farmers should be able to see clearly who is responsible for agricultural policy and where their payments come from.

Two sets of amendments matter particularly for nature. Some would guarantee that 35% of CAP funding goes to environmental measures on farmland and 5% of rural development money to LEADER, the EU’s programme for locally led rural projects, with the environmental measures paid entirely from the EU budget. Others, tabled by more than one political group, would make “do no significant harm” to the environment a fundamental rule for all the plans, applying across every fund covered by the regulation.

The clearest agreement across the groups concerned the partnership principle: the idea that these plans must be drawn up with stakeholders and regional actors, not decided in national capitals alone. Co-rapporteur Elsi Katainen MEP stressed this point, and several members went further, calling for it to become a binding condition, with plans rejected where it is ignored. MEPs also argued that farmers should be properly paid for delivering public goods such as biodiversity and healthy landscapes.

The co-rapporteurs aim to have Parliament’s position agreed by the end of the year, with the Council expected to be ready in the autumn.

Why does this matter to hunters? Two reasons. First, the CAP’s environmental funding, which supports the habitats that wildlife depends on, must be protected, whatever final structure emerges. Second, the partnership principle must be strong enough to give those who actually manage habitat on the ground, including hunters, a genuine voice when the plans are written.