The CAP’s Transition to a Single Fund: Legal and Institutional Consequences

Aim: The 2025 Commission package (COM[2025] 565 and COM[2025] 560) proposes a Single Fund (PNRF) for 2028–2034, merging CAP resources with other EU instruments and ending the traditional dual-pillar system. This raises fundamental questions on compliance with Articles 38–44 TFEU, the preservation of CAP’s functional autonomy, and the resilience of budgetary safeguards. Material and methods: The article adopts a legal-dogmatic and comparative approach. It analyses EU primary law, the 2023–2027 CAP framework (Regulations 2021/2115–2117), and the Commission’s 2025 proposals (COM[2025] 565, 560, 550, 545). Parliamentary and Council materials, Member State positions, and stakeholders’ documents (e.g. CEJA, Copa-Cogeca) are reviewed. Given the scarcity of post-2027 academic literature, this work provides one of the first systematic legal-institutional assessments of the Single Fund. Results: The analysis identifies tensions between simplification and integration, on the one hand, and the CAP’s legal “speciality” on the other. Formal safeguards (ring-fenced agricultural envelopes, accounting separation, performance monitoring) exist, but doubts remain about their durability in times of budgetary stress. Some stakeholders see the PNRF as risking “silent renationalisation”, while others interpret it as subsidiarity in action, offering Member States flexibility to adapt interventions and overcome CAP’s compartmentalisation. Conclusions: The reform is not merely technical but constitutional in impact. Its success depends on balancing innovation with continuity: only robust safeguards can ensure that the Single Fund preserves the CAP’s identity as a genuine common policy. Implemented with transparency and legal certainty, it could modernise agricultural governance; without such guarantees, it risks eroding the CAP’s distinctiveness and weakening its role in food security and sustainable rural development.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.404868
Primary Topic
Agricultural Economics and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The CAP’s Transition to a Single Fund: Legal and Institutional Consequences

Francesco Tedioli
AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Agricultural Economics and Policy
article

The CAP’s Transition to a Single Fund: Legal and Institutional Consequences

Francesco Tedioli
article en

Abstract

Aim: The 2025 Commission package (COM[2025] 565 and COM[2025] 560) proposes a Single Fund (PNRF) for 2028–2034, merging CAP resources with other EU instruments and ending the traditional dual-pillar system. This raises fundamental questions on compliance with Articles 38–44 TFEU, the preservation of CAP’s functional autonomy, and the resilience of budgetary safeguards. Material and methods: The article adopts a legal-dogmatic and comparative approach. It analyses EU primary law, the 2023–2027 CAP framework (Regulations 2021/2115–2117), and the Commission’s 2025 proposals (COM[2025] 565, 560, 550, 545). Parliamentary and Council materials, Member State positions, and stakeholders’ documents (e.g. CEJA, Copa-Cogeca) are reviewed. Given the scarcity of post-2027 academic literature, this work provides one of the first systematic legal-institutional assessments of the Single Fund. Results: The analysis identifies tensions between simplification and integration, on the one hand, and the CAP’s legal “speciality” on the other. Formal safeguards (ring-fenced agricultural envelopes, accounting separation, performance monitoring) exist, but doubts remain about their durability in times of budgetary stress. Some stakeholders see the PNRF as risking “silent renationalisation”, while others interpret it as subsidiarity in action, offering Member States flexibility to adapt interventions and overcome CAP’s compartmentalisation. Conclusions: The reform is not merely technical but constitutional in impact. Its success depends on balancing innovation with continuity: only robust safeguards can ensure that the Single Fund preserves the CAP’s identity as a genuine common policy. Implemented with transparency and legal certainty, it could modernise agricultural governance; without such guarantees, it risks eroding the CAP’s distinctiveness and weakening its role in food security and sustainable rural development.

AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Agricultural Economics and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The CAP’s Transition to a Single Fund: Legal and Institutional Consequences — Francesco Tedioli · AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS