Dublin: For Irish farmers, most of whom run small, family-owned holdings that have spent years navigating the European Union’s layered system of direct payments, eco-schemes and cross-compliance checks, the promise of a simpler Common Agricultural Policy has been made before. This time, the simplification is arriving on two tracks at once, and the second of those tracks is the one that will determine whether the first means anything.
The first track is already moving. Negotiators from the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional agreement on a CAP simplification package, sometimes called the agricultural omnibus, intended to take effect from 2026 within the current programming period. Its components are incremental but real: more flexibility in how member states apply environmental requirements, simplified flat-rate payments for small and medium farms, lighter-touch rules for organic producers, faster procedures for farms hit by extreme weather, and reduced reporting burdens for national paying agencies. The Commission has separately released up to €215 million to help farmers and administrations adapt to these changes.
The second track is the design of the CAP for 2028-2034, and it is far more structurally ambitious. The Commission’s proposal merges the two funds that have underpinned the CAP for decades, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, into a single National and Regional Partnership Fund, provisionally sized at €865 billion across the next financial framework. Within that fund, the current patchwork of eco-schemes and agri-environment-climate commitments would be consolidated into a single instrument, with member states given more latitude to design their own mix of income support and environmental conditions at national or regional level.
That latitude is precisely what divides reactions to the reform. Farm groups, including in Ireland, have broadly welcomed the direction: fewer overlapping schemes, less duplicated paperwork between national and EU-level reporting, and a system that in theory adapts more easily to a small tillage farm in County Wexford and a large arable operation in northern France without forcing both through identical bureaucratic hoops. Environmental organisations read the same proposal differently, as a transfer of discretion away from common, enforceable EU-wide standards toward national governments whose appetite for environmental conditionality varies enormously, with a risk that simplification becomes a euphemism for diluted green requirements in member states under domestic pressure from farm lobbies.
Underneath both readings sits a question that simplification cannot answer on its own: how big is the pot. The €865 billion figure is provisional precisely because it depends on the outcome of the broader 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework negotiations, which entered a critical phase this month as the Cyprus presidency of the Council circulated its first detailed negotiation box, the document that translates political headlines into actual numbers by policy area. Agriculture ministers and heads of state are due to discuss the framework at successive meetings through late June, against a backdrop the European Parliament itself has described as a deeply divided EU27, with several net-contributor states pushing for an overall budget closer to current levels and several net-recipient and farming-heavy states resisting any reduction in agriculture’s traditional share.
For a farmer in Dublin’s hinterland, the practical questions are unglamorous but concrete: will a simplified national plan actually arrive with a payment rate that covers input costs that have risen faster than support has; will less paperwork survive contact with national administrations that often add their own requirements on top of EU minimums; and will the environmental conditions attached to payments, whatever form they take after 2028, be ones a small mixed farm can realistically meet without the consultancy fees that have become their own quiet tax on rural Ireland. Simplification that does not address those three questions risks being simplification in name only.




